^>^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^
Library of Dr. A. A. Hod^e. Presented.
BL 240 .A73 1886
Armstrong, George D. 1813-
1899. I
The two books 6f nature and
revelation collated
Ci <L
7/
/<,c if-C'Ci^-
THE
TWO BOOKS
OF
Nature and Reyelation
COLLATED.
KY
GEOEGE D. ARMSTEONG, D.D.,
Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk, Va., and former hj Professor
of Chemistry and Geology i>i Washington and Lee University^
Lexington, Va.
FUNK & WAG N ALLS.
NEW YORK: 1886. LONDON:
10 AND 12 Dey Street. 44 Fleet Street.
All Bights lieserved.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1886, by
FUNK Jb WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C.
PREFACE.
It is sometimes said that scientific questions can be in-
telligently decided by scientists alone ; and for this rea-
son people of ordinary intelligence and education must
take tbese decisions on trust. This is true respecting cer-
tain questions ; but, a^ the same time, it is true that the
great body of our modern science, the science involved
in the decision of 'such questions as those discussed in the
present volume, can be brought fully within the reach
of the understanding of any well-informed man of aver-
age intelligence, if an honest effort is made to do it.
Such a man might not be able to construct the argument
for himself, but when it is fairly presented he can judge
and reach his conclusions for himself as safely as the
scientist can.
Edward Clodd, F.R.A.S., must have believed this
in so far as the questions concerning primeval man are
concerned, for he wrote his " Childliood of the World"
for the use of youth in a course of education. Professor
Huxley must have believed this in so far as evolution
is concerned, for most of his " Lay Sermons and Ad-
dresses" and his New York ''Lectures on Evolution"
were originally addressed to popular audiences. Pro-
fessor Robertson Smith and Dr. Toy must have believed
this in so far as the authenticity and genuineness of the
Pentateuch are concerned, for the first-named addressed
his "Lectures on the Old Testament in the Jewish
Church" to a popular audience, and Dr. Toy wrote his
IV PREFACE.
'' History of the Eeligion of Israel " for the use of the
advanced classes in Sabbath-schools.
In the present volume the author has sought : (1)
To popularize the discussion of the matters treated of,
avoiding as far as possible the use of technical terms,
or, where such terms were, for any reason, used, add-
ing immediately an explanation thereof ; and (2) to
bring the discussion within the limits of a single volume
of moderate size, by taking no notice of irrelevant mat-
ters and matters of little importance, and confining his
attention to the strong points alone — the points upon
which a correct decision of the questions at issue must
turn. How far he has succeeded in this he must leave
the reader to judge.
CONTENTS.
L— NATURE AND REVELATION.
PAGE
§ 1. The Border-land. § 2. Science as yet Incomplete.
§ 3. Premature Announcements. § 4. The Language of
Scripture. §5. The Author's Object in Writing 7
IL— PRIMEVAL MAN.
§ 6. The Question Stated. § 7. Advance and Degrada-
tion alike Common. §8. True Significance of the *' Ages."
§ 9. The Testimony of Geology. § 10. The Testimony of
Anthropology. § 11. The Testimony of Archaeology.
§ 13. Conclusion from the Testimony of Science. § 13.
The Cradle of the Human Race. § 14. The Antiquity of
the Nations of Western Asia. § 15. The Antiquity of
Egypt. § 16. Tradition Respecting the Confusion of
Tongues. § 17. Tradition Respecting the Flood. § 18. Tradi-
tion Respecting the Golden Age. § 19. Mauetho, Berosus, and
Moses Compared. § 20. Further Proof of the Credibility
of the Pentateuch. § 21. Civilization of Primeval Man,
according to the Pentateuch. § 22. Religion of Primeval
Man, according to the Pentateuch. §23. Conclusions.... 16
III.— EVOLUTION.
§ 24. Changes in Inorganic Nature. § 25. Changes which
Constitute Growth. § 26. Changes which Last beyond the
Life of the Individual. § 27. Evolution as held by Her-
bert Spencer. § 28. Evolution as held by Charles Darwin.
§ 29. Evolution in its Limited Range. § 80. Argu-
ments for Evolution. § 31. Some Objections to Evolution.
§ 32. Two Capital Objections to Evolution. § 33. Conclu-
sions. § 34. Relation of Revelation to Evolution as Taught
by Huxley. § 35. Relation of Revelation to Evolution as
Taught by Darwin. § 36. Revelation and Evolution as
Taught by Dr. Woodrow. § 37. Revelation and Evolution
in its most Limited Ransre 52
Tl CONTEXTS.
IV —THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY.
§38. A Remarkable Fact. §39. "In the Beginning," ac-
cording to Moses. § 40. " In the Beginning," according to
Science. § 41. Emergence from Chaos, according to Moses.
§ 42. Emergence from Chaos, according to Science. § 43.
The Creation of Plants and Animals, according to Moses.
§ 44. The Creation of Plants and Animals, according to Sci-
ence. § 45. The Creation of Man, according to Moses.
§ 46. The Creation of Man, according to Science. § 47.
The Age of the World. § 48. The Popular Method of Rec-
onciliation. § 49. A Second Method of Reconciliation.
§ 50. The Proper Position for the Christian Apologist.
§ 51. Huxley's Objection to Creation as Supernatural.
§ 53. Huxley's Objection to Creation as subject to no Law.
§ 53. Huxley's Objection to Creation as implying an Extrav-
agant Expenditure of Divine Power. § 54. Points at which
the Hypothesis of Evolution Breaks down. § 55. Con-
clusion 98
v.— THE PENTATEUCH.
§56. The "Higher Criticism." §57. The Question Stated.
§ 58. The Pentateuch Claims Moses as its Author, and to be
True History. § 59. Quotations of the Pentateuch as Au-
thentic and Credible. § 60. Prophets and Apostles In-
spired, Our Lord Divine. § 61. The Literary Style of the
Pentateuch. § 62. Incidental Confirmations. § 63. The
Character of the Communications. § 64. The Divine Ele-
ment in the Authorship of the Pentateuch Ignored by the
" Higher Critics." § 65. The Truth of Evolution Assumed
by the " Higher Critics." § 66. Conclusions 153
VI.— PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER.
§ 67. A Statement of Professor Huxley. § 68. Effect of Mod-
ern Science on Man's Conceptions of Nature. § 69. Hux-
ley's Picture of our Cosmos Incomplete. § 70. The True
Conception of Nature. § 71. Providence. § 72. Professor
Tyndall's Prayer-Test. § 73. Tyndall's Test Practically
Worthless. § 74. Tyndall's Test Impracticable. § 75. Tlie
EiEcacy of Prayer Tested by Observation. § 76. Prayer
Instinctive 186
THE TWO BOOKS OF
NATURE AND REVELATION COLLATED.
I.
]^ATURE AND REVELATIOlSr.
§ 1. '^ The Border-land.''
" The border-land between science and religion is one
which men cannot be prevented from entering ; but what
they may find there depends very much on themselves.
Under wise guidance it may prove to us an Eden, the
very gate of heaven, and we may acquire in it larger and
more harmonious views of both the seen and the unseen,
of science and religion. But, on the other hand, it may
be found to be a battle-field or a bedlam, a place of con-
fused cries and incoherent ravings, and strewn with the
wrecks of human hopes and aspirations." (Dawson's
'^ Facts and Fancies of Modern Science," p. 1-^.)
What Principal Dawson here remarks as true of science
and religion is, of necessity, true of science and the rev-
elation of the one only true religion contained in the
Scriptures. In making a revelation of religious truth in
such a form as to be easily intelligible to man, especially
"• the common people," the Scriptures very wisely pre-
sent us with, not a "Confession of Faith," not a
treatise on " Systematic Theology," but with that truth
8 NATURE AND REVELATION".
as it is incorporated in tlie history of tlie Church and the
life and experience of God's people in the world. The
Bible contains very little didactic discussion or logical
exhibition of the truth it teaches, but is largely made up
of history, the biographies of saints and sinners, of
psahns and proverbs and prophecies, and the story of
the hfe and teachings of the God-man during His brief
sojourn among men. Admitting, then, as every thought-
ful reader must, that there is no intention on the part of
the sacred \7riters to teach us science, in the distinctive
sense of that term, in the Scriptures, it will be seen at
once that the Scriptures, on the one hand, and geog-
raphy, history, chronology, and science, physical and
metaphysical, on the other, must often cover the same
ground, not for the same purpose, it is true, but yet
must often cover the same ground ; that there is a bor-
der-land in which the students of Scripture and science
must meet, and will have occasion to examine the same
subjects, and deal with the same facts. As Principal
Dawson remarks, '^ Man cannot be prevented from enter-
ing this border-land ;" nor is it desirable, in the interest
either of religion or science, that he should be. The
Christian believes that the Bible and nature are both
alike from God — a God of truth ; and from this it
necessarily follows that when rightly interpreted they
will harmonize and illustrate each other. Yet, as a
matter of fact, nothing is more certain than that divines
and scientists have often been in conflict ; and at the
present day the most persistent attacks upon Christianity
are from the side of science, thus illustrating the truth
of the remark ^' that what men may find in this border-
land depends very much upon themselves" — the pur-
pose with which they enter that land, and the spirit in
which they pursue their investigations.
NATURE AND REVELATION-. 9
^^At the time of the meeting of the British Association
in 18(35, some six hundred and seventeen scientific men
signed a paper containing the following declaration —
viz. : ' We conceive that it is impossible for the Word
of God, as written in the book of natnre, and God's
w^ord, w^ritten in Holy Scripture, to contradict one an-
other, however much they may appear to differ. We
are not forgetful that pliysical science is not complete,
but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present
our finite reason enables us to see as through a glass
darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come
when the two records will be seen to agree in every par-
ticular.' " (''Current Discussions in Theology for
1883," pp. 7, 8.)
§ 2. Science as yet Incomplete.
There is and there can be no conflict between science
and revelation ; but there is and there has long been
conflict between scientists and divines ; and a fruitful
source of this conflict is, as intimated in the paper of the
British scientists, quoted above, the present incomplete-
ness of science. Taking science as it is set forth in the
popular waitings of the day, we will find it consisting of
two distinct and separable portions — viz. : (1) a body of
well-ascertained facts and principles, which make up the
science itself ; and (2) a body of hypotheses and con-
jectures, more or less probable, by means of wdiich men
are endeavoring to enlarge the domain of science. It
would be a great mistake to reject the use of all hy-
potheses simply because they were unproven. The his-
tory of science furnishes abundant evidence that hy-
potheses, even such as have afterward turned out to be
incorrect, have been of great use in directing the course
of investigation and experiment on the part of those who
10 NATURE AND REVELATION.
were laboring for the enlargement of human knowledge.
Like the scaffold used in the erection of a building, they
have been of great service while the building is going
up, though removed as of no value after the building is
completed. But we should never forget that unproved
I hypotheses are not an integral part of science itself.
Much of the seeming discrepancy between science and
'revelation to-day arises out of a disregard of this dis-
tinction, and a consequent declaration that science tes-
tifies to this, and science testifies to that, when, in fact,
I the testimony is not that of science, but that of some
unproved hypothesis. Prof. Huxley never wrote a truer
thing than when he wrote : ^' Men of science, like young
colts in a fresh pasture, are apt to be exhilarated on
being turned into a new field of inquiry, and to go off at
a hand gallop, in total disregard of hedges and ditches,
losing sight of the real limitation of their inquiries, and to
forget the extreme imperfection of what is known."
(" Origin of Species," Lecture I.)
§ 3. Premature Announcernents.
In the early part of the j)resent century a great excite-
ment was created in tlie scientific world by the discovery
of '' the zodiacs of Dendera and Esne in Egypt." The
zodiac painted upon the ceiling of the temple at Den-
dera ' ' is headed by the sign of the Lion, followed by the
Virgin, the Balance, the Scorpion, the Archer, and Cap-
ricorn in the same line. The peculiar arrangement of
these figures represented, it was said, the exact position
of the constellations when the zodiac was constructed,
and it was ascertained by appropriate calculations that it
w*as much older than the beginning of the period em-
braced in the Christian chronology." Li 1821 the
zodiac of Dendera, having been carefully detached from
NATURE AND REVELATION. 11
the ceiling of the temple, was brought safely to Paris.
* * M. Greppo describes the interest which it awakened :
an object of interest to educated men, and of vanity to
those who thought themselves such, it could not remain
unnoticed by the multitude ; and classes of society who
knew not even the significance of the term zodiac rushed
in crowds to behold it. In the journals, in the saloons,
the zodiac was the only topic of discussion. Have you
seen the zodiac ? What do you think of the zodiac ?
were questions to which every one was seemingly com-
pelled to give a well-informed answer, or to be degraded
from a place in polished society. Tracts were circulated
in Paris to disseminate the fact that the Christian chro-
nology was set aside." (Southall's " Eecent Origin of
Man," pp. 76, 77.) Subsequent and more thorough in-
vestigation, especially that of the younger Champollion
in Egypt, has shown, beyond all question, that this an-
nouncement was premature, that ''these zodiacs be-
longed to the first and second centuries of the Christian
era, and were ' schemes of nativity, ' and had reference
to ' judicial astrology.' "
In his admirable lecture on '' The Education of the
Judgment," Professor Faraday dwells upon the impor-
tance of " reserving judgment" in matters imperfectly
known. Had scientists generally learned this lesson, the
history of modern science would have furnished no occa-
sion for such a chapter as Chapter Y. in Southall's " Re-
cent Origin of Man" on " The Fickleness of Science."
§ 4. The Language of Scripture,
The lang-uao-e of common life is very different from
that of science. In common life we speak of things as
they appear, as they become known to us directly
through the use of our senses. In science we seek to
12 N"ATURE AND REVELATIOi^.
represent things as tliey really are, and to do tliis with
accuracy and completeness ; and as science has es-
pecially to do with the relation of cause and effect, we
speak of phenomena with the purpose of expressing this
relation. In the language of common life we say the
sun rises ; and this, although we know perfectly well that
the motion of the sun is apparent and not real — pro-
duced by the turning of the earth uj)on its axis. In the
language of astronomy we would say the sun appeared
above the horizon in consequence of the revolution of the
earth upon its axis ; or, if we wished to be particularly
accurate, we would add, and the earth's motion in its
orbit, and the refraction of light in passing through the
earth's atmosphere ; for both of these last-mentioned
causes has something to do with the time of the sun's
appearance above the horizon.
To the use of scientific language in common life there
are two objections — viz, :
(1) Such language is, to a large extent, unintelligible
to the mass of the people. Even among the learned, in
one department of science, the language of another de-
partment may be unintelligible. Many an able mathe-
matician cannot read understandingly a page of modern
chemistry ; and many an accomplished chemist would
find himself completely at a loss in attempting to get at
the meaning of a page of the best treatise we have on
analytical geometry.
(2) Scientific language, especially that of what are
called, distinctively, the natural sciences, generally in-
corporates in itself so much of current hypothesis — often
of hypothesis afterward abandoned — that the writings
of the men of one age are unintelligible to those of
another, unless read in the light which the history of the
science casts upon their meaning. In illustration of this
NATURE AND REVELATION. 13
remark, take a brief extract from Nicholson's ^'Philos-
ophy," a standard work in its department a century ago.
In his chapter on " The Marine Acid, and the Com-
binations in Avhich it is a Principal Part," Nicholson
writes : " Black manganese is the calx of a semi-metal,
which has a strong tendency to combine with 2:)lilogiston.
If four ounces of marine acid, with one ounce of this calx,
be put into a retort, to which the apparatus used in dis-
tilling the marine acid has been previously adapted, yellow
vapors are abundantly disengaged, at first without the
assistance of tire, and afterward by means of heat.
. . . This vapor is found to consist of marine acid de-
prived of one of its constituent parts — namely, phlogis-
ton (according to Scheele ; but Eerthollet has rendered
it probable that it consists of dephlogisticated air, com-
bined with marine acid). It attacks phlogistic bodies
with great vehemence, and dissolves all the metals
directly, affording the same salts as the entire acid does,
but without disengaging any inflammable air." This
passage will be utterly unintelligible to the common
reader ; and even to many a young chemist of the
present day ; and this for the reason that Nicholson,
in stating a fact, has incorporated in his statement the
exploded theory of phlogiston — a theory once univer-
sally accepted by chemists, and clung to even after the
progress of discovery compelled them to suppose that
phlogiston was lighter than nothing ; that instead of pos-
sessing weight, as other elements did, it possessed the
opj)osite of weight — i.e., levity, as they styled it.
For such reasons as these, the use of scientific lan-
e'uao-e is limited to treatises on science : while the Ian-
guage of common life is that used in all other writings ;
and this, even where the greatest accuracy is desired.
The carefully written laws of the land speak of the sun's
14 NATURE AND KEVELATION.
rising and setting as familiarly as men do in common
conversation. Indeed, in so far as the truth intended
to be expressed is concerned, the language of common
life is as accurate as the language of science. When
I say the sun rises I mean to tell of a certain phenom-
enon — i.e.^ a certain thing as it appears, as it is made
known to my senses, and not that event in relation to
its cause, as the astronomer does. For the same reasons
that the language of common life is that used by all men
in writing history, geography, chronology, and even
the laws of the land, that language has been used, under
the Divine direction, in writing the Holy Scriptures.
Ignorance of this ^ruth, so reasonable in itself, or a wil-
ful disregard of it in interpreting the Scriptures, has been
the cause of much of the conflict between scientists and
divines since the revival of learning in these modern
times.
§ 5. The AiithoT^s Object in Writing.
Bearing in mind '' the incompleteness of science," the
author, in the following papers, has not attempted to
work out a harmony of science and revelation — that is,
a work belonging to the future. What he has attempted,
as the general title of the work indicates, is to collate the
two books of nature and revelation ; and this with the
design (1) of directing the reader's attention to the points
in which the latest results of scientific investigation and
the statements of revelation, put on record many cen-
turies ago, are at one ; and (2) to show that, even on
points in which, at present, there is apparent discrepancy,
there is no necessary contradiction. Having been a stu-
dent of science for half a century, and for some of the
best years of his life a teacher of science also, and
through all these years a devout student of Scripture,
he can heartily indorse the declaration of the British
MATURE AND REVELATlOi?'. 15
scientists, quoted in § 1 — ^' We confidently believe that
a time will come when the two records will be seen to
agree in every particular."
The papers embraced in this volume have been writ-
ten, and several of them given to the public, either
through the press or from the platform, in the course of
the last few years ; but all of them have now been care-
fully rewritten, so as to embody the latest results of
scientific research and biblical criticism, and thus a true
representation of the case as it stands to-day.
II.
PEIMEYAL MAN.*
§ 6. The Question Stated.
How LONG AGO, AND IN WHAT CONDITION AS TO CrVTXIZATION AND Ke-
lilGION, DID THE EaCE OF MaN BEGIN ITS CoUESE IN THE WOKLD ?
Until very recently the opinion entertained by those
who thought upon the subject at all was, that man was
created some six or seven thousand years ago,t and that
he commenced his course as a civilized being, believing
in the one only living and true God.
A far greater antiquity has been claimed for him by
some of late years ; and we are told that man, beginning
his course as a savage, has gradually raised himself
through what are termed the paleolithic, the neolithic,
the bronze, and the iron ages, each of which lasted for
many thousands of years, until he reached the begin-
* The substance of this paper was originally delivered as a lec-
ture at the Summer School of the American Institute of Christian
Philosophy, at Key East, N. J., July 29th, 1885, and subsequently
published in Christian Thought.
f "A world's era, dating from the creation, and constructed out
of the Old Testament, was in use among the Jews at the time of
Christ, The Jewish historian Josephus employs it in his work on
archaeology. Such an era seems to recommend itself in several re-
spects, but its construction presents difficulties which can hardly
ever be overcome. Every scholar who tries it comes to a different re-
sult. Julius Africanus counts from the creation to Christ 5500
years ; Eusebius, Bede, and the Roman Martyrologum, 5199 ; Scaliger
and Calvisius, 3950 ; Kepler and Petarius, 3984 ; Usher, followed by
our English Bibles, 4004. " — Schaff- Herzog's Encyclopaedia, art. * ' Era. ' *
PKIMEVAL MAN. 17
nings of our modern civilization. This opinion has been
supported with especial zeal by those who adopt the
hypotliesis of man's evolution from tlie brute ; indeed,
it would seem to be a necessary consequence of such an
origin for him, even though evolution be regarded but
as " a mode of creation." To an examination of the
problem thus presented we will now turn our attention.
§ 7. Advance and Degradation alike Common.
Beginning our examination, where all examination of
such a subject must begin, if we would arrive at the
truth, with the present condition of man, we find him
in every possible stage of civilization, from the utter
savagery of the Digger Indians of Korth America and
the Weddas of Ceylon to the advanced civihzation of
the English-speaking nations, who dominate the world.
And comj)aring the present condition of the nations
with what authentic history tells us it was a few centuries
ago, we learn that while some nations have been steadily
advancing in civilization, others have been stationary,
and others, again, have retrograded. The American
Encylopiedia, in its article on Ethnology, written by an
evolutionist and an advocate of the great antiquity of
man, marks only five of the thirteen great families into
which it divides the human race as advancing in civiliza-
tion at the present time, while four are stationary, and
the remaining four are retrograding.
An instance of retrogradation is furnished us by the
aborigines of our own country. " There are abundant
remains," writes Sir John Lubbock, '' of a very ancient
American civilization, which was marked by the con-
struction of great public works and by the development
of an agriculture founded on the maize, which is a cereal
indigenous to the continent of America. This civiliza-
18 NATUKE AND BEVELATIOi?'.
tion was subsequently lost, and then succeeded a period
in wliicli man relapsed into partial barbarism." ('' Pre-
historic Times," p. 234:.)
An instance of the extreme degradation of a once
highly civilized people we have in the Yeddas, or
Weddas, of Ceylon. Of this people Canon Rawlinson tells
us that a careful study of their language proves them to
be ^' the degenerate descendants of the Sanskrit Aryans
who conquered India;" and he adds: '* It is difficult
to conceive of a degradation which could be more com-
plete. The Sanskrit Aryans must, by their language
and literature, have been at the time of their conquest
in a fairly advanced stage of civilization. The Weddas
are savages of a type than which it is scarcely possible
to conceive anything more debased. Their language is
limited to some few hundred vocables ; they cannot count
beyond two or three ; they have, of course, no idea of
letters ; they liav^e in a domesticated condition no animal
but the dog ; they have no arts beyond those of making
bows and arrows, and constructing huts of a very rude
kind ; they are said to have no idea of God, and scarcely
any memory. They with difficulty obtain a subsistence
by means of the bow, and* are continually dwiiidliiig,
and threaten to become extinct. " (' ' Origin of In ations,' '
pp. 6, 7.)
In view of such facts as these — and many more of like
character might be cited— the Duke of Argyll writes :
*'I^othing in the natural history of man can be more
certain than that, both morally and intellectually and
physically, he can, and he often does, sink from a higher
to a lower level. This is true of man both collective-
ly and individually, of men and of societies of men.
Some regions of the world are strewn with monuments
of civilizations vv^hich have passed away. Eude and
PRIMEVAL MAN. 19
barbarous tribes stare with wonder on the remains of
temples, of which thej cannot conceive the purpose,
and of cities which are the dens of beasts." (" Primeval
Man," p. 156.) And the venerable professor of ancient
history at Oxford comes to the conclusion that "sav-
agery and civilization are the two opposite poles of our
social condition, states between which men oscillate
freely, passing from either to the other with almost
equal ease, according to the external circumstances
wherewith they are surrounded." (" Origin of Na-
tions," p. 8.)
§ 8. True Significance of the " Ages^
The several ages — as they are called — of stone, bronze,
iron, and a higher civilization are not, nor have they
ever been, ages in the progress of the human race as a
whole, but only in that of particular peoples or nations —
peoples in all these stages of progress living not only at
the same time, but often side by side, as did the Eng-
lish colonists, the Eed Indians, and the Aztecs in this
country two centuries ago.
l^ov does the passage of a particular people through
one of these ages — the Stone Age, for example— neces-
sarily require thousands of years. Where a savage
people are brought in contact with a civilized one they
may pass through all these " ages" in the course of a
generation or two. Such has been the case with the
civilized Indians, now quietly settled in our "Indian
Territory." As Dr. Southall remarks, "The Stone
Age is not necessarily associated with antiquity. It is a
stage of civilization, and not a measure of time."
(" Recent Origin of Man," p. 388.)
Nor are these several ages always stages in the progress
of a people. They may be stages in a course of degra-
20 NATURE AND REVELATION.
dation, as was the fact, according to Sir Jolm Lubbock,
with respect to the Stone Age, in which many tribes of
our Isorth American Indians were found living, at the
first settlement of the country by Europeans. The Stone
Age may mark the last stage in the decadence of a once
highly civihzed people, as well as the first stage in the
advance of a savage people toward civilization.
The assumption by the advocates of a great antiquity
for man that our existing civilization is a result wrought
out by the human race as a whole, through long ages,
the general course being one of advance from utter sav-
agery at its beginning, is irreconcilable with the known
facts in the case. The question under examination can-
not be settled by any general reasoning upon what is as-
sumed to be the nature of man and the necessary prog-
ress in civilization, nor can it be settled by a study of
the existing condition of the nations of the earth, and
their history for the few centuries which authentic history
covers in the case of many of them. In seeking an
answer to it, we must make use of written history, so
far as that is available ; and when that fails ns, we must
turn to the '^monuments" and tradition and every
trace of himself of every kin^ which man has left behind
him in the distant past. Geology, anthropology, and
archaeology, as well as history, traditional, monumental,
and written, have a right to be heard ; and to their testi-
mony let us now turn our attention. The examination
of each of these several kinds of testimony will be, neces-
sarily, brief ; but not so brief, I hope, as to prevent
our reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
PRIMEVAL MAN". 21
I. The Testimony of Science.
§ 9. The Testimony of Geologtj.
On one point tlie testimony of geology respecting
primeval man is definite and unquestionable, and tliat
is, that man is ''^ the latest born " of the inhabitants of
our earth. From the fauna to which he belongs more
than one species of animal has disappeared, but, in so far
as is known, not one has been added since he came into
being.
From time to time during the last half century the
announcement has been made that human remains had
been found in positions which demonstrated a much
greater antiquity for man than had hitherto been allowed ;
but in every instance a more careful examination has
proved this claim to be unfounded. Among the most
noted of these cases are the following — viz. :
1. '' The fossil man of Guadeloupe,^'' for which Nott
and Gliddon, in their '' Types of Mankind," published
in 1854, claimed a great antiquity. '' There were two
of these skeletons, which were found imbedded in the
solid rock on the northern coast of Guadeloupe, in the
"West Indies. One of these is in the British Museum,
and the other in the Royal Cabinet in Paris. ... A
careful study of them has led to the conclusion that they
are the remains of Indians killed in battle not more than
two centuries ago. The rock is a limestone, which is
forming daily on that coast. . . . And the skeletons
still retain some of their animal matter, and all their
phosphate of lime." (Southall's ^' Eecent Origin of
Man," pp. n, 78.)
2. The fossil human hones found, as was re^ported,
22 NATURE AND REVELATION.
hy Count Pourtales, in the coral reefs of Florida, and
which Professor L. Agassi z calculated to be ten thousand
years old, basing his calculations upon what he consid-
ered the rate of growth in coral reefs. Respecting this
case, the American Naturalist, vol. 1, p. 434, contains
the following statement : ^' In regard to the alleged dis-
covery of human bones in the coral formation of Florida,
which was first published by Professor Agassiz in Nott
and Gliddon's ' Types of Mankind,' and has appeared in
other works, including Lyell's ' Antiquity of Man,' we
beg to give our readers the following statement, in his
own words, of Count L. F. Pourtales, the original discov-
erer of these bones : ' The human jaw and other bones
found in Florida by myself in 1848 were not in a coral
formation, but in a fresh- water sandstone, on the shore of
Lake Monroe, associated with fresh-water shells of species
still living in the Lake (Paludina, Ampullaria, etc.). No
date can be assigned to that de|)Osit, at least from present
observation.' "
3. '' The Natchez man,^'^ as it was called— a human
pelvis found in the bottom of a ravine cut througli the
fluviatile deposit at Natchez, Miss. , which Sir Charles
Lyell estimated to have an age of one hundred thousand
years. On this case I remark : (1) Professor C. G.
Forshey, who subsequently examined the spot where this
bone was found, says : '^ It was probably not in situ, but
this loam and the bone too had caved in from some point
above and been washed thither. A dozen plantation
burial-places and Indian mounds and camps had been
exposed above for centuries. The probabilities are a
hundred to one that this bone was not of the bluff forma-
tion. (2) The conclusion of Lyell respecting the age of
this bone is based upon anotlier conclusion of liis, that
the delta of the Mississippi has been one hundred thou-
PRIMEVAL MAN". 23
sand years in forming. Since Lyeirs estimate more
accurate observations on the rate of formation of the
Mississippi delta have reduced the estimate of its age to
fourteen thousand two hundred years, according to Pro-
fessor Hitchcock, or four thousand four hundred, accord-
ing to Majors Humphreys and Abbot, United States en-
gineers, the latest authorities on the subject."*
Such are three of the cases in which certain geologists
thought for a time that they had obtained proof of a great
antiquity for man — three among the most noted cases,
and fair specimens, I think, of the wdiole class. In view
of them all, my conclusion is that while geology dis-
tinctly testifies that man is the '^latest born" of the
living creatures inhabiting our earth, it can tell us nothing
definite about the time of his birth — certainly nothing at
variance with the idea that he began his course on earth
not more than six or seven thousand years ago.
§ 10. The Testhnony of AntJiropology.
At one time it was claimed that certain human skulls
which had been discovered, and which from the position
in which they were found were regarded as the skulls
* In the Philadelphia Presbyterian of August 22d, 1885, I find the
following: "Oftentimes we have reports that human remains have
been discovered in some of the geological strata. Then we have fig-
ured out for us how old the deposit is, and how old man must be,
seeing that his remains are found so deepl}'- buried in these forma-
tions. Thousands and tens of thousands of years are claimed, and
the great antiquity of man is declared to be demonstrated. The last
discovery has been made in Mexico, and near the capitol. Human
bones have been found in a stratum of travertine, and their antiquity
has been argued." But Professor Newberry, of Columbia College, has
weighed the reports, and says : •' It is jiossible that we have in these
bones the oldest record of man's occupation of the continent, but no
facts have yet been brought to light which prove that the deposit
containing them was not made within a thousand years. "
24 NATURE AND REVELATION.
of paleolithic men — '^tlie Neanderthall skull," for ex-
ample — demonstrated a great difference between these
men and the men of the present day, and so a much
greater antiquity for man than had hitherto been allowed
him. A more careful and extended examination has led
anthropologists to a different conclusion.
^^ The most ancient of all known human skulls,"
writes the Duke of Aygyll, ''is so ample in its dimen-
sions that it might have contained the brains of a philos-
opher." So conclusive is this evidence against any
change whatever in the specific characters of man since
the oldest human being yet known was born, that Pro-
fessor Huxley pronounces it to be clearly indicated that
the first traces of the primordial stock whence man has
proceeded need no longer be sought by those who en-
tertain any form of the doctrine of progressive develop-
ment in the newest tertiaries ; but lie adds they may
be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of
those tertiaries than that it is from us." ("Primeval
Man," pp. 73, Y4.) In explanation of the remark of
Professor Huxley, quoted above, I would remind the
reader that " the newest tertiaries'' are the oldest strata
in which human remains have as yet been found.
Professor Pfaff, of the University of Erlangen — the
latest authority on this subject I have seen — after giving
a tabular statement of the dimensions of a large number
of very ancient skulls — paleolithic skulls, as they are
called — collected in Great Britain and France,^ reaches
the conclusion : '' We see very clearly from all this that
the size of the brain of. the oldest population known to
us is not such as to permit us to place them on a lower
* "As these skulls are partly fragmentary, we shall best obtain
figures adapted for the comparison of their contents by adding the
PRIMEVAL MAN". 25
level tlian tliat of the now living inhabitants of tlie
earth." And, he subsequently adds, " The brain of
the ape most like man does not amount to quite a third
of the brain of the lowest race of men ; it is not half the
size of the brain of a new-born child. The same gulf
which is found to-day between man and the ape goes
back with undiminished breadth and depth to the tertiary
period." C' The Origin of Man," pp. 41, 51.)
§ 11. The Testimony of ArchcBology.
The testimony of archaeology respecting primeval
man comes from several different sources.
1. That of the megalithiG monuments and tumuli
found in various parts of the world. One of the most
celebrated of these megalithic monuments is that of
Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plains, Eng. When and by
whom was this erected ? By the Druids, probably, long
ages before the conquest of Great Britain by the Romans,
say some. Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his "History of
Great Britain," written in the twelfth century — and he
is followed in this by all subsequent chroniclers — tells us
that Ainbrosius, the successor of Yortigern, erected
Stonehenge as a monument to three hundred British
noblemen treacherously slain by Hengist about a.d. 462.
In confirmation of this date, we have the facts that
some of the great stones are dressed evidently with
measures for the lieight, breadth, and length of the skulls ; and po
doing we obtain the following figures — viz. :
Average of 48 skulls of the Stone Age from England . 18.877 in.
Average of 7 skulls of the same age from Wales 18.858 in.
Average of 36 skulls of the same age from France 18.220 in.
The average of the now living European is 18.579 in.
The average of the now living Hottentot is 17.795 in.
— " The Origin of Man" p. 41.
26 NATURE Ai^D llEVELATION".
bronze or iron tools, and that iron arrow-lieacls and
pieces of iron armor, nearly eaten up with rust, have
been dug up within its enclosure.
Mr. James Fergusson, F.R.S., who has made this a
special subject of study in his " Eude Stone Monu-
ments," published in 1872, states as his conclusion that
the ^'Cromlechs" of Great Britain and France belong
to the first centuries of the Christian era, and states that
three fourths of these monuments have yielded sepulchral
deposits to the explorer, and, including the "tumuli,"
probably nine tenths have proved to be burial-places.
For the tumuli, or '^ mounds," as they are more common-
ly spoken of among us, of Is"orth and South America, no
more ancient date can reasonably be claimed than for
those of Europe.
2. Thai of the remains of laTce dwellings — i.e., build-
ings erected upon piles, which have been discovered in
the course of the last thirty years in many of the lakes
of Switzerland and adjacent countries. An age of six or
seven thousand years has been claimed for these remains,
chiefly on the ground of the rude stone implements
found in them.
In considering this claim I would ask you to remark
the facts : (1) That mingled with these rude stone im-
plements, others of bronze and iron occur, together
with the remains of the horse, the ox, the goat, the
sheep, and the dog, all domesticated animals ; and wheat,
bailey, and millet, in some instances roasted and stored
up in jars, precisely as is now done in these same countries ;
and, very recently, silver coins of the eighth and tenth
centuries have been dredged up from the ruins of the
lake-dwellings of Lake Paladru, in southern France ;
(2) that pile-dwellings are delineated on Trajan's column
at Eome. The date of this column is about a.d. 105, and
PRIMEVAL MAK. 27
it was erected to commemorate tlie conquest of Dacia, the
modern Hungary. Such dweUings have been common
in many countries in ages past, and are still in use in
some, being resorted to for protection against the at-
tacks of enemies, as in Ireland, as late as 1562, or to
escape the periodic floods to which the country is sub-
ject, as in Venezuela to-day.
3. That of the Danish KjohTceii-moddings, or shell-
onounds. A great antiquity is claimed for these shell
mounds on the ground of the rude character of the stone
implements found in them — metal implements being
entirely wanting in many of them^and the presence of
bones of animals now extinct.
Shell-mounds similar in character to those of Denmark
are to be found along the coast of many countries. On
our own coast they are of frequent occurrence all the way
from Nova Scotia to Florida. Those of our country are
confessedly of Indian origin. Knowing the history of
the early settlement of this country by Europeans, what
would we naturally expect to find true respecting these
shell-mounds which the Indians have left behind them ?
I answer : (1) In the lower strata, or the older mounds,
rude stone (paleolithic) implements alone ; (2) in the
upper strata and the newer mounds, formed after the
arrival of European settlers, the same rude stone imple-
ments, mingled with copper ornaments and iron hatchets ;
and this is just what we do find. Is it strange, then,
that two thousand years ago, when the natives of Den-
mark stood to the civilized Romans in very much the
same relation that our Indians did to civihzed Europeans
two hundred and fifty years ago, that the same things
should be found true of the shell-mounds they left be-
hind them ?
The truth is, '' The whole argument which has been
28 NATURE AND REVELATION.
founded on flint implements," as tlie Duke of Argyll
well says, " is liable to these two fundamental objec-
tions : (1) That flint implements are a very uncertain
index of civilization, even among the tribes who use
them ; and (2) that they are no index at all of the state
of civilization of other tribes who lived at the same
time in other portions of the globe. The flnding of flint
implements, for example, however rude, in England or
Denmark or France, affords no evidence whatever of
the condition of the industrial arts in the same age upon
the banks of the Euphrates or the Nile." (" Primeval
Man," p. 184.)
4. That of the ^'' hone-caves'''' of Europe^ in which
the bones of man are found mingled with those of the
cave-bear, the cave-hyena, the mammoth, the woolly
elephant, the hippopotamus, and the reindeer — animals
now extinct, or else no longer inhabitants of the coun-
tries in which these caves occur.
If man was the contemporary of these animals — and
the mingling of his bones with theirs in the same caves
would seem to place this beyond reasonable doubt — the
question presents itself. How long ago is it that these
animals inhabited Central Europe ? and when did they
cease to exist, if they have disappeared altogether '\ (1)
The cave-bear and cave-hyena, once thought to be ex-
tinct species of these animals, and so very ancient, more
careful examination has shown to be identical with the
species now living ; (2) the reindeer, now conflned to
Northern Europe, Ci3esar and Sallust both tell us, was
common in Gaul (France) and Germany in their day ;
(3) the remains of the woolly elephant occur in great
abundance in Siberia, in some instances with the flesh in
such a condition as to be eaten by dogs ; (4) the remains
of the mammoth are found in surface deposits and peat
PRIMEVAL MAN". 29
swamps — e.g., in the Dismal Swamp of Yirginia — with
the bones retaining a large portion of their animal matter,
thus proving their comparatively recent extinction. In
confirmation of this, in the '' Smithsonian Contributions
to Knowledge," vol. 3, p. 142, we are told that among
the IN'orth American Indians there are native legends
whicli indicate a traditional knowledge of more than one
of these extinct animals, among them the mastodon or
mammoth. Now, whether w^e do or do not adopt the
supposition of Dr. Southall, that these human bones found
in the bone-caves of Europe are those of ^^ the first race
which reached Western Europe from Western Asia, and
were subsequently pushed further north by the Celts,"
this much, I think, is certainly true, tliat there is nothing
in the known facts of the case which demands for them
an antiquity greater than four thousand or five thousand
years.
§ 12. Conclusion from the Testimony of Science.
The reader has now before him a statement of all the
important facts of geology, anthropology, and archaeol-
ogy bearing upon the question of primeval man. It
is brief, but 1 have tried to make it a fair statement.
To any who may wish to pursue the subject further, I
would recommend Dr. James C. Southall's " E-ecent
Origin of Man," a work whicli contains the most full
and thorough discussion of the whole subject I know of
in the English language. This testimony of science
does not settle the question respecting the age and condi-
tion of primeval man ; and certainly it furnishes no
authority for such statements as that of Clodd — '^Man
was once wild and rough and savage, frightened at liis
own shadow, and still more frightened at the roar of the
thunder and the quiver of the lightning, which he
30 NATURE Ai^D REVELATION".
tlionglit were the clappings of the wings and the flash-
ings of the eyes of the angry Spirit, as he came flying
from the sun ; and that it has taken many thousands of
years for man to become as wise and skilful as we now
see him." (Clodd's '' Childhood of the World," p. 2.)
II. The Testimony of History.
§13. '^ The Cradle of the Human Race.
5>
The unity of the human race, a point respecting
which there was at one time much difference of opinion,
may now be regarded as a settled question. Professor
Huxley writes : '' I cannot see any good ground what-
ever, or even any tenable sort of evidence, for behoving
that there is more than one species of man." ('^ Origin
of Species," Lecture Y.) And the Duke of Argyll:
^^ On this point, therefore, of the unity of man's origin,
those who bow to the authority of the most ancient and
the most venerable traditions, and those who accept the
most imposing and the most popular of modern scientific
theories, are found standing on common ground, and
accepting the same result.*" (''Unity of J^ature,"
p. 399.)
Where did the human race begin its course ? On
this point, as well as that of the unity of the race,
scholars are pretty well agreed.
The country known to us, in part, as Armenia — the
elevated region in which the Euphrates, the Tigris, and
the Indus have their head-waters — is regarded as the
cradle of the human race ; and tliis, among other rea-
sons, because the most ancient traditions all point to
this as man's starting-point, because this is the native
country of the cereals which have furnished food for man
PRIMEVAL MAN. 31
the world over, and because ethnological investigations
all lead to the same conclusion. It is here, and cluster-
ing around this as a centre, we find the oldest nations,
the only ones that have a history reaching back into the
long past — e.g.^ the Chinese, the Indians, the Persians,
the Assyrians, the Jews, the Phoenicians, the Greeks,
and the Egyptians.
§ 14. The Antiquity of the Nations of Western Asia.
It would be impossible within the limits of a brief dis-
cussion like this to give any statement in detail of the
claims to antiquity of these several peoples. Instead
thereof I will ask the reader's attention to the conclusions
of Canon Rawlinson, stated at large, with his reasons for
them, in his " Seven Great Monarchies," and, in brief,
in his later work, " The Origin of JSTations." He writes :
"Exaggerated chronologies are common to a large
number of nations ; but critical examination has — at any
rate, in all cases but one — demonstrated their fallacy ;
and the many myriads of years postulated for their past
civilization and history by the Babylonians and Assyrians,
the Hindoos, the Chinese, and others, has been shown to
be purely fiction, utterly unworthy of belief, and not
even requiring any very elaborate refutation. Cuneiform
scholars confidently place the beginning of Babylon
about B.C. 2300 ; of Assyria, about b.c. 1500 ; of India,
about B.C. 1200. Chinese investigators can find nothing
solid or substantial in the past of the " Celestials" earlier
than B.C. 781, or, at the farthest, b.c. 1151. For Phoenicia
the date assigned by the latest English investigator is six-
teen or seventeen centuries b.c. . . . A concensus of
savants and scholars almost unparalleled limits tlie past
history of civilized man to a date removed from our own
time by less than four thousand four hundred years, ex-
32 NATURE AND REVELATION.
cepting in a single instance. There remains one conn-
try, one civilization, with respect to which the learned
are at variance, there being writers of high repute who
place the dawn of Egyptian civihzation about b.c. 2700,
or only four centuries before that of Babylon, w^hile there
are others who postulate for it an antiquity exceeding
this about two thousand four hundred years. " {'' Origin
of Nations," pp. U7-U9.)
§15. The Antiquity of ^gypt.
On what is this claim for so great antiquity for
Egyptian civilization based ? Not on any direct monu-
mental testimony, although certain writers speak as if
it was upon such testimony, at least in part, the claim
rested. On this point Rawhnson writes : '' Nothing is
more certain, nothing more universally admitted by
Egyptologists, than the absence from the monuments of
any continued chronology." ('' Origin of Nations,"
p. 152.) And in support of this statement he quotes the
authority of some of the most eminent scholars of the
day.*
Professor Owen, the ablest advocate of the great an-
tiquity of Egyptian civilization, rests its claim to accept-
ance mainly on the testimony of Manetho, an Egyptian
* Stuart Pool says the evidence of the monuments with regard
to chronology is neither full nor explicit. (" Dictionary of the Bible,"
vol. 1, p. 505.) Bunsen : " History is not to be elicited from the mon-
uments ; not even its framework, chronology." ("Egypt's Place,"
vol. 1, p. 32.) Brugsch : "It is not till the commencement of the
twenty-sixth dynasty that the chronology is founded upon dates not
much wanting in exactness." ('* Histoire d'Egypt," p. 25.) Marietta
and Lenormant : "The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a
regular Egyptian chronology is the circumstance that the Egyptians
themselves never had any chronology at all," (" Manuel d'Histoire
Ancienne," vol. 1, p. 332 ; Eawlinson'a " Origin of Nations," p. 152.)
PRIMEVAL MAN. 33
priest wlio lived and wrote near tlie middle of the third
century before Christ. Unfortunately for us, the original
*' History of Egypt," by Manetho, has been lost, and
we have nothing more than fragments of it, preserved in
the writings of Eusebius and Sincellus, together with a
few quotations by Joseph us.
Respecting Manetho's dynasties of Egyptian kings, it
is worthy of remark : (1) That the earliest dynasties are
rejected by all as fabulous. Of this character are his
dynasties of the gods, covering a* period of thirteen
thousand nine hundred years, and those of the Manes and
Heroes, covering five thousand eight hundred and thir-
teen years more ; and so the antiquity of Egyptian cisril-
ization, as given by Manetho, is curtailed nearly twenty
thousand years by common consent. (2) The state-
ments of Eusebius and Sincellus, each professing to give
Manetho's numbers, often differ as to the length of the
same dynasty, admitted to be genuine, in one instance
as much as three hundred years. (3) Manetho states that
Egypt, throughout a large part of its history, was divided
into three kingdoms : Upper, Middle, and Lower Egypt ;
and there is abundant proof from other quarters that
such was the fact ; and, if so, it seems fair to conclude
that some of his dynasties were contemporary. As to
which, and how many of them were contemporary,
Egyptologists are not agreed. In view of all these facts,
it must be admitted that anything like a definite deter-
mination of the antiquity of Egyptian civilization, on
the authority of Manetho's dynasties, is out of the
question.
Can we get any light on this perplexing question from
the monuments ? A peculiarity in the construction of
the Great Pyramid, confessedly one of the oldest, if not
the very oldest, of Egyptian monuments, is thought by
34 NATURE AXD REVELATIOJ^.
some to give iis the date of its erection. This pyramid
is admirably oriented, and, of coarse, one of its sides
faces due north. In this north side is the entrance,
the long entrance passage being in the exact plane of
the meridian — not horizontal — not pointing to the true
pole, which would require an elevation of 30°, the lati-
tude of the pyramid, but at an angle of 26° 27', accord-
ing to the careful determination of Piazzi Smith, Astron-
omer Roval of Scotland. Colonel Howard Vise, who,
forty-five years ago, spent months in the study of this
pyramid, was impressed with this peculiarity, and think-
ing it possible that this passage pointed to what was the
pole-star at the time of its erection, he communicated
this idea to Sir John Ilerschel, with the request that he
would determine for him whether or not there ever was
a pole-star which occupied just the position indicated,
and which might have served as a guide to the pyramid-
builders ; and if there was, what star ? and when did
it occupy that position ? As changes in the pole-star
are dependent upon the '' precession of the equinoxes,"
and the rate of that precession has been determined,
these questions were not difficult to answer. Sir John
Ilerschel determined that thi3 star Alpha Draconis, one
of the brightest stars in the northern circumpolar re-
gions, was once pole-star, and occupied the very posi-
tion indicated at two points in the past — viz., b.c. 2123
and B.C. 3400. For reasons wdiich it is not necessary I
should state here, the first of these dates was accepted
by Colonel Yise ; and for a time the date of the erection
of the Great Pyramid was generally considered settled ;
and, for myself, I must say I have seen no good reason
given for setting aside this settlement. This pyramid,
as the quarry-marks upon many of its blocks of stone
show, was built during the reign of Cheops ; and, ac-
PRIMEVAL MAK. 35
cording to Manetlio's dynasties, not more than two or
three centuries coidd have intervened between Cheops'
reign and that of Menes, niiiversally regarded as the
founder of the Egyptian monarchy. Thus, in the date
of the bnihling of the Great Pyramid we have Canon
Kawhnson's determination of the antiquity of Egyptian
civilization— viz., about B.C. 2600 years—strikingly con-
firmed.
The pyramid period falls very early m Egyptian his-
tory, and yet its civilization would seem to have been
as perfect as at any later period. Sir G. Wilkinson
writes : ^' The scenes depicted in the tombs of this epoch
show that the Egyptians had already the same arts and
habits as in after times, and the hieroglyphics in the
Great Pyramid prove that writing had been long in nse.
We sec no primitive mode of life in Egypt, no barbar-
ous customs, not even the habit, so slowly abandoned by
all people, of wearing arms when not on miUtary service,
nor any archaic art." (Pawlinson's " Herodotus," vol.
2, p. 291.) If to all this we add the architectural skill
exhibited in fixing the casing stones of the pyramid,
and in polishing the marble linings of the several pas-
sages, and, more especially, the red granite linings of
what is called the King's Chamber, we cannot but form a
high idea of Egyptian civilization at that period. In
view of snch facts as these, M. Renan exclaims : " When
we think of this civilization, that it had no known in-
fancy ; that this art, of which there remain innumerable
monuments, had no archaic period ; tliat the Egypt of
Cheops and Cephron is superior, in a sense, to all that
followed, 071 est pins de vertlge.''' (Quoted in Smith's
" Great Pyramid," voL 8, p. 371.)
Admitting the truth of all that has been said about the
advanced civilization of the Pyramid period, and that
36 NATURE AND REVELATIOif.
we cannot, on the authority of authentic history, carry
back its date much further than Canon Rawhnson has
done, Professor Owen contends for the addition of some
two thousand years, on the ground that '' sober experi-
ence teaches that arts, language, and literature are of slow
growth, the result of gradual development ; . . . that of
all the marvels of this history, the manifestation of the
dawn of civilization by such works, agreeably with the
conceptions of Canon Ilawlinson, would be the greatest.
The birth of Pallas from the brain of Jove would be
its parallel." (Appendix to the ^' Origin of Kations,"
p. 259.) This argument of Professor Owen — and! have
given it in his own words — is simply a " begging of the
question " at issue. A parallel to the birth of Pallas
from the brain of Jove is just what those who hold that
the human race began its course in a civilized condition
contend for. As to the civilization of Egypt, they hold
that the Egyptians were not autoch thanes, nor did their
civilization dawn in the Yalley of the Nile. Like the
Anglo-Saxon race in our own country, they were im-
migrants, the offshoot of a civilized people, and in their
settlement of Egypt they brought with them the civili-
zation of the country from which they came, as our fore-
fathers did.
This view of matters is confirmed by all we know of
the history of their religion. Piazzi Smith tells us that
^' the pyramids generally are without idolatrous decora-
tions or contents." (" The Great Pja-amid," vol. 3,
p. 518.) A very remarkable fact is this, when their later
built temples and tombs are more thickly covered with
marks of idolatry than those of any other people. M.
Penouf writes : ''It is incontestably true that the sub-
limest portions of the Egyptian religion are not the com-
paratively late results of a process of development or
PRIMEVAL MAN". 37
elimination from the grosser. The siiblimest portions are
demonstrably ancient ; and the last stage of the Egyptian
religion — that known to the Greek and Latin writers — •
was by far the grossest and most corrupt." (" Hibbert
Lectures," p. 119.)
By means of authentic records, written and monu-
mental, we have traced back the history of man about
four thousand five hundred years. Beyond this date we
have certain traditions, more or less universal, that fur-
nish some liglit to guide us. To three of these — the
three most ancient — we will now turn our attention.
§ IG. Tradition Respecting the Confusion of Tongues.
This story of the " Tower of Tongues," writes
Lenormant, " was among the most ancient recollections
of the Chaldeans, and was one of the national traditions
of the Armenians, who had received it from the civilized
nations inhabiting the Tigro-Euphrates basin." ("Ancient
History of the East," p. 22.)
Berosus gives the tradition in the following form — viz. :
" They say that the first inhabitants of the earth,
glorying in their own strength and size, and despising
the gods, undertook to raise a tower whose top should
reach the sky, in thephice in which Babylon now stands ;
but when it approached the heavens, the winds assisted
the gods, and overthrew the work uj)on its contrivers,
and its ruins are said to be still in Babylon ; and the
gods introduced a diversity of tongues among men, who
till that time had all spoken the same language ; and a
war arose between Chronus and Titan. The place in
which they built the tower is now called Babylon, on
account of the confusion of tongues, for confusion is by
the Hebrews called Babel." (Cory's " Ancient Frag-
ments," p. 3L) This tradition in an earlier form has
38 MATURE AND REVELATION".
recently been discovered inscribed on one of the Assyrian
tablets in the British Museum, and a translation of it
is given in " The Records of the Past," vol. 7, pp.
129-132.
§ 17. Tradition of the Flood.
''' The one tradition," writes Lenormant, '' which is
really universal among those bearing on the history
of primeval man, is that of the deluge. ... Of all
traditions relative to the deluge, by far the most curious
is that of the Chaldeans, made known to the Greeks by
BerosLis." {" Aucient History of the East," pp. 13,11.)
This tradition, as given by Berosus, is as follows— viz. :
'' In the time of Xisuthrus happened a great deluge, the
history of which is thus described : The deity Chronus
appeared to him in a vision, and warned him that upon
the 15th day of the month Sivan there would be a flood
by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore
enjoined him to write a history of the beginning, pro-
cedure, and course of all things, and to bury it in the City
of the Sun at Sippora, and to build a vessel, and to take
with him into it his friends and relations, and convey on
board ev-erything necessary to sustain life, together with
all the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, and
to trust himself fearlessly to the deep. Having asked
the deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, ' To
the gods ; ' upon which he offered up a prayer for the
good of mankind. He then built a vessel five stadia in
length and two in breadth. Into this he put every-
thing he had prepared, and last of all conveyed into it
his wife, his children, and his friends. After the flood
had been upon the earth, and was in time abated,
Xisuthrus sent out birds from the vessel, which, not find-
ing any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest
their feet, returned to him again. After an interv^al of
PRIMEVAL MAN. 39
some days he sent them forth a second time, and they
now I'etiirned with their feet tinged with mud. He
made a trial the third time w^ith these birds, but they
returned no more, from w^ience he judged that the sur-
face of the earth had appeared abov^e the waters. He
therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon look-
ing out found that it was stranded upon the side of some
mountain, upon which he immediately quitted it, with
his wife, his daughter, and the pilot. Xisuthrus then
paid his adoration to the earth ; and having constructed
an altar, offered sacrifice to the gods." (Cory's ^'An-
cient Fragments," p. 26.) This tradition in an ear-
lier form, like that of the " Tower of Tongues," has re-
cently been discovered among the Assyrian tablets in
the British Museum, and a translation of it is given in
" The Eecords of the Past," vol. 7, pp. 133-149.
§ 18. Tradition of a Golden Age.
'^ The traditions of almost all nations," writes Canon
Kawlinson, '^ place at the beginning of human history a
time of happiness and perfection, ' a golden age,' which
has no features of savagery or barbarism, but many of
civilization and refinement. In the Zendavesta, the first
Assyrian king, after reigning for a time in the original
Aryanem vaejo, removes with his subjects to a secluded
spot, where both he and they enjoy uninterrupted hap-
piness. In this place was neither overbearing nor mean-
spiritedness, neither stupidity nor violence, neither
poverty nor deceit, neither puniness nor deformity,
neither huge teeth nor bodies beyond the usual measure.
The inhabitants suffered no defilement from the evil
spirit. They dwelt amid odoriferous trees and golden
pillars ; their cattle were the largest, best, and most
beautiful on earth ; they were themselves a tall and beau-
40 NATURE AND REVELATION.
tiful race ; their food was ambrosia], and never failed
tliem." {'' Origin of Nations," p. 11.)
The Eg3'ptian dynasties, according to Manetho, com-
menced with a reign of the gods, which lasted for thir-
teen thousand nine hnndred years ; and it wonld be in
violation of all onr notions of the fit and the proper to
think of the gods as reigning over a race of savages —
over any other than a happy people. The Chinese his-
torians tell of an age of innocence, when the whole crea-
tion enjoyed a state of happiness ; when everything was
good, all being perfect in their kind. " The Greeks and
Romans believed in a golden age under the rule of
Saturn ; and many of their poets — as, for example,
Hesiod, in his ' Works and Days,' Aratus, Ovid, and,
above all, Yirgil, in the lirst book of the Georgics —
Lave turned this poetic material to admirable account,
and defined the gradual decadence of tlie world, as the
silver, the brass, and the iron ages, holding out at the
same time the consolatory hope that the pristine state
of things will one day return." (Chambers's Encyclo-
paedia, art. Golden Age.)
As already remarked, in the light of authentic history,
written and monumental, we*can trace back the history
of man some four thousand five hundred years ; and, I
now add, under the guidance of tradition we can go
back, possibly, one thousand or two thousand years more ;
and there we seem to reach his beginning, to come upon
primeval man as he is starting upon his course ;^' and we
* In Pusey's "Daniel," recently republished in this country, I
find the following statement— viz. : "The known population of the
world is much what it would be, according to recognized rules of the
increase of our race, dating from the received chronology of Noah,
and starting with six persons. Rough as such calculations must be,
they wholly exclude the fabulous unbroken antiquity which some
PRIMEVAL MAN". 41
find liim, not the ignorant, brutal savage, destitute of
all religion, which some would have us believe primeval
man to have been, but man enjoying his golden age,
under the immediate government of the gods, and in
happy communion with them ; and true science testifies
to nothing at variance with this. I may be told that
this conclusion is out of harmony with the hypothesis of
the evolution of man from the brute. If this be so, all I
have to say is, the worse, then, for the hypothesis of evo-
lution. At best '' an unproved hypothesis," to use the
words of \^irchow, it cannot be accounted an integral
part of true science. True science is built up of facts,
not fancies.
III. The Testimo^s^y of Moses.
§ 19. ManetJiOj Berosus^ and Moses Compared.
Thus far we have sought to answer the questions,
When ? And in what condition did the human race
begin its course ? — from sources admitted by all to be
worthy of credit, and to whicli all are accustomed to
refer when discussing this subject. 1 have purposely
said nothing of that wonderful ancient history preserved
for us by the Jews, which claims to have been written
more than a thousand years before Manetho or Berosus
was born — the Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses.
claim for the human race." And in a note he adds: "It is calcu-
lated by M. Faa de Bruns, one of the most distinguished scholars of
Cauchy, now Professor at Turin, that, starting from the received
chronology of the flood, b.c. 2318, and taking as the annual in-
crease 2^7. ^ number not far from that which represents the annual
increase of the population of France, you would light on the net
number of the population of the earth, 1,400,000,000." (Pusey's
"Daniel," preface, p. xv.)
42 NATURE A:^D REVELATION".
The testimony of Moses is studiously ignored by most
of those who contend for a great antiquity and a savage
origin for man ; and if I should attempt to state their
objection to him, just as I believe it lies in their own
minds, I vrould do it in some such words as these :
Moses was a priest, and the Pentateuch was w^ritten in
the interest of the religion which he taught ; and priest-
craft, wiiether it presents itself in the form of duties en-
joined or lessons taught, is not to be trusted.
'' Moses was a priest." This is not the exact truth ;
his brotlier Aaron was the priest ; but let that pass.
And who was Berosus ? A priest. And he tells us
expressly that the substance of his history was derived
from the temple records of Babylon. And who was
Manetho ? A priest. And he too professes to derive
his information from the temple records and priestly tra-
ditions of Egypt. If, then, we accept the testimony of
the two priests — Berosus and Manetho — how can we, v/ith
any show of reason, reject that of Moses on the ground of
his priestly character ? The truth is, in those early ages
in the East, as in Great Britain five hundred years ago,
education was almost entirely confined to the priesthood.
Sir Walter Scott is true to history when he makes a lead-
ing nobleman of Scotkmd of that age say :
"At first in heart it liked mo ill,
"When the King praised his clerkly skill ;
Thanks to St. Bota'n, son of mine
Save Gowan, ne'er conld pen a line."
It would be just as reasonable to discredit the histories
of the Yenerablo Bede, or Lingard, because of the priest-
ly character of their authors, as to discredit the writings
of Berosus or Manetho or Moses on such grounds.
'' Moses wrote in the interest of religion, and the Pen-
tateuch has a religious tone throughout." True; and
PRIMEVAL MAi^". 43
the same is true of the writino-s of Manetho and Berosus.
Of Manetlio's writings we have but little besides liis
'' Dynasties of the Kings of Egypt ;" but this begins with
''the reign of the gods." Of the religious tone of the
writings of Berosus, the traditions which he has pre-
served for us of the '' Tower of Tongues," and " The
Flood," already quoted, furnish an illustration. The
cuneiform inscriptions of the Tigro-Euphrates valley, the
only writings of an antiquity approaching tliat of the
Pentateuch, are all profoundly religious in their tone.
As a proof of this, take a brief extract from the celebrated
Behistun inscription, as translated by Oppert. '' And
Darius the king says : These are the princes which call
themselves mine. By the grace of Ormazd, to me they
made subjection, brought tribute to me, what was ordered
by me unto them, in the night-time as well as in the day-
time, that they executed. And Darius the king says : In
these provinces the man who was my friend I cherished
him ; the man who was my enemy I punished liim
thoroughly. By the grace of Ormazd, in these lands was
my law observed ; and what was ordered by me unto
them, that they executed. And Darius the king says :
Ormazd gave to me this kingdom, and Ormazd was my
helper until I gained this kingdom, and by the grace of
Ormazd I possess this kingdom." (" Records of the
Past," vol. Y, pp. 88, 89.)
In the thoroughly religious tone of their writings,
Manetho, Berosus, Moses, and the cuneiform inscriptions
are all alike, the only difference being that the religion
which appears in Moses' writings is a religion of a con-
fessedly higher type — inasmuch as it recognizes one
God only — than the Egyptian animal worship of Manetho
or the Parseeism of Nineveh and Babylon. Did the Pen-
tateuch lack this religious tone, it would be out of har-
44 NATURE AND REVELATION".
mony with all other writings of the age in w^hich it claims
to have been written ; and to object to it on this ground
simply exposes the ignorance of the objector.
In addition to this, 1 would ask you to notice the facts :
(1) That we have the original v^ork of Moses in the
language in w^iich it was first written, as well as in several
ancient translations, preserved w^itli religious care by the
Jews ; while of the writings of Manetlio and Berosus we
have but fragments, preserved by later writers. (2) That
the Pentateuch is, in large measure, a record of what
took place in Moses' day — is contemporary history —
while the histories of Manetho and Berosus, who lived
during the third century before Christ, are altogether
histories of what must have been to them the long-passed.
If they had tradition and the temple records to help
them, so had Moses tradition, and, as is inferred from a
critical examination of his writings by our ablest scholars,
certain written documents, which had come down to him
from an earlier age. Possibly it is to these documents
the Chaldean tradition of the Deluge refers, vdien it tells
us that '^ the Deity appeared to Xisuthrus (the ]^oah of
Moses), and enjoined him to write a history of the begin-
ning, the procedure, and course of all things," and to
take measures to preserve it for the instruction of after
ages. (3) If the writings of Manetho and Berosus are
confirmed at many points by the monuments of Egypt and
the Tigro-Euphrates valley, so are the writings of Moses,*
and, in one particular — in the greatest event in the
history of Israel which it records — the Exodus from
■* The reader who wishes to follow up this subject can "consult
Hengstenberg's "Egypt and the Books of Moses," and Rawiin-
son's "Egypt and Babylon."
PRIMEVAL MAN". 45
Ef^yptiaii bondage — the history of Moses is confirmed in
a way in which no other ancient history is. In com-
memoration of that event, and of the means by whicli
the pride of Egypt was broken and Israel set free, a
solemn feast was instituted — the Passover — which is
observed by the Jews to-day, scattered though they be
all over the world, and whicli has been observed by them
from the day of its institution — a monument this,
standing forth amid the ages solitary and alone, as last-
ing as the pyramids and more certain in its testimony ;
for wliile the purpose for which tlie Great Pyramid was
erected is a matter in dispute among tlie learned, but
one interpretation has ever been given to the Passover,
the presiding officer at the feast to-day repeating, as he
did three thousand five hundred vears aa^o — " It is the
sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, who passed over the
houses of the cliildren of Israel in Egypt, wdien he smote
tlie Egyptians, and delivered our houses." (Exodus
12:27.)
In view of sucli facts as these, I ask, How can we,
with any show of reason, accept the writings of Manetho
and Berosus as credible and reject those of Moses ? I
have said nothing of Moses' claim to inspiration, nor do
1 mean on the present occasion to advance that claim. 1
wish to discuss the question before us on grounds ad-
mitted by all to be legitimate. All I cLaim for Moses is,
that he shall be treated fairly — treated just as Manetho
and Berosus are, and so treated, I believe his claim to
credibility can be more satisfactorily established than
that of any other ancient historian whose writings have
come down to us ; and so, in the words of Lenormant,
*' They should, in sound criticism, form the basis of all
history." ('' Manual of Ancient History," p. 1.)
46 MATURE A^'D EEVELATIOX.
§ 20. Further Proof of the Credibility of the Pentateuch.
Taking the Pentateuch as our guide, at the point at
which all other written history fails lis, we will be able
to trace back the race of man to its beginning. As we
start in this attempt, I will ask you to remark that :
(1) At the point at which we start, Moses' history is in
perfect harmony with all other credible histories in the
representation which it gives of the then existing state of
things. There are great civilized nations dwelling in the
Tigro-Euphrates and Nile valleys, their people living
in walled cities, as well as in the open country, and
carrying on trade, and making wars one with another ;
that emigration is going on, and has been going on for
years, from the great centres of population, and so
Egypt and Chaldea are surrounded by lesser tribes, who,
under the influence of their less favorable environments,
have lost something of the civilization they once pos-
sessed ; and that a gross idolatry seems to be supplant-
ing the purer worship of one God which had prevailed,
notably in Egypt.
(2) As we proceed back to the beginning, with Moses'
writings in our hands, we gather up and incorporate into
a history which possesses philosophic unity all the frag-
ments preserved in the most ancient traditions, such as
"the Tower of Tongues," "the Deluge," and "the
Golden Age." Lenormant writes: "The Pentateuch
contains the most ancient tradition as to the first days of
the human race, the only one which has not been dis-
figured by the introduction of fantastic myths of dis-
ordered imaori nations run wild. The chief features of
that tradition, which was originally common to all man-
kind, and which the special care of Providence has pre-
served in greater purity among the chosen people than
PKIMEVAL MAIT. 47
among other races, are preserved, though changed, in
countries distant from each other, and whose inhabitants
liave had no communication for thousands of years. The
only clew which can guide ns throngh the labyrinth of
these scattered fragments of tradition is the Bible."
{" Manual of Ancient History," p. 1.)
§ 21, Civilization of Primeval Jfan according to the
PentateucJi.
The condition of primeval mau is described by Moses
in the words — ^' God created man in His own image, in
the image of God created lie him ; male and female
created He them." (Gen. 1 : 27.) " And the Lord God
planted a garden eastward in Eden ; and there He put
the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground
made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant
to the sight, and good for food. And the Lord God took
the man, and put liijn into the garden of Eden to dress
it and to keep it." (Gen. 2 : 8, 9, 15.) '' And Adam
gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and
to every beast of the field. And . . . the Lord God . . .
brought the v/oman nnto the man. And Adam said,
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she
shall be called Woman, because she v/as taken out of
man. Therefore shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave unto his Vv^ife : and they shall be one
flesh." (Gen. 2 : 20, 22-2L) " And God blessed them,
and God said nnto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
(Gen. 1 : 28.)
The sketch thus given us of primeval man is a sketch
in outline only, but it is complete enough to place
48 NATURE AND REVELATION.
beyond all reasonable question tlie fact that he was no
savage, just emerging as to body and mind from the con-
dition of a brute, living in damp caves, and feeding npon
the raw flesh of such animals as he was able to entrap or
master in open fight — " the cave man," as he has been
called. The nearest approach to such a man our world
has presented is the Patagonian, and that in these closing
years of this nineteenth century. Primeval man, as
depicted by Moses, is a being bearing the image of
God ; cultivating the fruitful earth which, in response to
his labor, yielded an abundant return of all that was good
for food ; possessed of a language copious enough to give
name to every living thing ; subduing the earth, and hav-
ing tlie marriage relation established in all the sacredness
which belongs to it among the most civilized nations of
our day — a most significant particular in Moses' sketch,
when v\'e consider that ^' one of the most general charac-
teristics of the savage is to despise and degrade the female
sex." (Malthus ou " Population," vol. 1, p. 39.)
All these things, I may be told, do not constitute
civiHzation, in the accepted signification of that word.
An extended knowledge of the useful arts, and the pos-
session of such a settled svstem of laws and e^overnment
as enable men to live in great political communities, are
essential features of civilization. This is true of civil-
ization as the term is applied to peoples and nations, and
in this sense civilization vras impossible for man at the
commencement of his course, impossible until he had
multiplied greatly in the earth, impossible for a century
or two. Such a civilization in its liv^ing germ is all that
can possibly be predicated of primeval man ; and in the
particulars which Moses has given us, we have this
civilization in its living germ, and that a civilization of
a higher type than that of Egypt, with her pyramids and
PRIMEVAL MAN. 49
temples, built by slaves working under tlie lasli of their
taskmasters ; or that of Rome, with her triumphal
arches adorned with sculptures of chained captives, and
her Colosseum erected for popular shows of mortal com-
bat between gladiators and wild beasts.
§ 22. Religion of Prhneval 31an according to the
Pentateuch.
Turning now to what the Pentateuch tells us of the
religion of primeval man, 1 will direct jour attention
to one passage only — " And in process of time it came
to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an
offering unto the Lord. And Abel, lie also brought of
the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And
the Lord had respect unto Abel and unto his offering.
But unto Cain and his offering he had not respect."
(Gen. 4 : 3-5.) As thro vvdng light upon the signifi-
cance of this passage, one of the most learned of the Jews
wrote eighteen hundred years ago : " By faith Abel
offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain."
We have here, then, Abel by bloody sacrifice, which he
offered in faith, the representative of what is distinctively
styled " evangelical religion ;" and Cain, by his offering
the fruit of the ground, the representative of what is dis-
tinctively styled "natural religion;" neither of them
the religion of the savage, but the two great phases of
reliirious thouMit and belief common amono; the most
highly civilized peoples of our day.
Canon Rawlinson, in the "concluding remarks" of
his " Relisrions of the Ancient World," writes : " The
historic review which has been here made lends no sup-
port to the theory that there is a uniform growth and
progress of religions from fetisliisin to polytheism, from
polytheism to monotheism, and from monotheism to posi-
50 NATURE AND REVELATION.
tivism, as maintained hj the followers of Comte. !None
of the religions here described shows any signs of having
been developed out of fetishism, unless it be the Shaman-
ism of the Etruscans. In most of them the monotheistic
idea is most prominent at the first, and gradually becomes
obscured, and gives way before a polytheistic corruption.
In all there is one element, at least, which appears to be
traditional — viz. , sacrifice, for it can scarcely have been by
the exercise of his reason that man came so generally to
believe that the superior j)owers, whatever they were,
would be pleased by the violent death of one or more of
their creatures."
'^ Altogether, the theory to which the facts appear on
the whole to point is the existence of a primitive religion,
communicated to man from without, w^iereof Monothe-
ism and expiatory sacrifice were parts, and the gradual
clouding over of this primitive revelation everywhere,
unless it were among the Hebrews. Even among them
a worship of Teraphim crept in (Gen. 31 : 19-35),
together with other corruptions (Josh. 2i : 11) ; and
the terrors of Sinai were needed to clear away poly-
theistic accretions. Elsewhere degeneration had free
play. . . . The cloud wa^ darker and thicker in some
places than in others. There were, perhaps, races with
whom the whole of the past became a tabula rasa, and all
traditional knowledge being lost, religion was evolved
afresh out of the inner consciousness. There were others
which lost a portion, without losing the whole of their
inherited knowledge. There were others again who lost
scarcely anything, but hid up the truth in mystic lan-
guage and strange symbolism. The only theory which ac-
counts for all the facts — for the unity as well as the diver-
sity of ancient religions — is that of a primeval revela-
tion, variously corrupted through the manifold and
PRI.MEYAL ma:??". 51
multiform deterioration of human nature in different races
and places." (Humboldt Library, No. 62, p. 92.)
§ 23. Conclusions.
In view of all tlie facts of the case — and the reader
may rest assured that no important fact bearing upon the
question at issue has been intentionally omitted — the
conclusion to wliich we come is, that no sufficient reason,
either scientific or historical, has as yet been given for
abandoning what has been hitherto the almost universal
faith, not of Christian peoples alone, but of the more en-
lightened heathen also, as manifested in their traditions
— that man %oas created some six or seven thousand
years ago^ and that he coinmenced his course as a civil-
ized heing^ helieving in the one only living and true God.
111.
EVOLUTION.*
§ 24. Changes in Inorganic Nature,
Our world is all the time undergoing change, in some
part or other, through the agency of heat and frost,
storms of wind and rain, river currents and floods,
volcanoes and earthquakes, gradual elevations or depres-
sions of large districts of country, and the operation of
coral polyps in building up reefs, and stone-boring mol-
liisks and ocean waves in tearing these reefs to pieces
again. And judging from appearances, as well as by
reasoning upon the nature of the agencies themselves,
these changes have been going on for ages, and must
have been far more extensive in early times than in our
day. ^^ volcanic and earthquake agency, a little more
than a year ago, mountains were thrown up, and a large
district of level country simk'in the ocean in the neigh-
borhood of the Island of Sumatra. On our own coast,
at Nag's Head, the winds have piled up the sand-hill
from which the place takes its name, where was an inlet
from the ocean to the Sound less than a century ago.
These are instances of this class of changes of recent oc-
currences. The only general truth, or law, respecting
them demanding attention in the present discussion is
that from the very nature of the agencies by which they
* The substance of this paper was originally delivered as two
lectures, in Norfolk, Ya., during October, 18o4, and subsequently
published in pamphlet form.
EVOLUTION". 53
are effected these changes must be confined to inorganic
nature. It is the world, in the narrower sense of the
word alone, which can be directly affected by them.
The series of changes of tliis kind which our world is
believed to have undergone, while they constitute a de-
velopment of that world — an evolution, in the etymolog-
ical sense of the word, and are sometimes spoken of as
cosmical evolution, they have nothing to do with evolu-
tion in the sense in v/hich Darwin uses the word — '^ de-
scent with modifications" — they are not embraced in the
evolution 1 propose to discuss in the present paper.
§ 25. Olianges winch Constitute Growth.
By a series of changes and variations, the acorn develops
into an oak, the egg into a full-grown fowl. The mature
being — the oak — is very unlike the organism from which
it sprung ; and yet no one who has watched this growth-
development can doubt for a moment the identity of
the oak with the acorn. In some instances the variations
which constitute growth -development are very great and
very remarkable — e.g.^ the silk-worm appears at first as
a small oval Qgg. This hatches, as we say, and instead
of the Qgg we have a naked green caterpillar, with the
regular perpendicular insect mouth, and feeding npon
leaves. When this caterpillar has attained its growth,
it fashions for itself a curious case called a cocoon, and
enclosing itself therein, is transformed into a chrysalis ;
and then, after remaining for a season in a dormant state,
it comes forth a winged moth, with the structure of its
mouth so changed that it can no longer feed upon leaves
as it once did, but must have liquid food, such as honey ;
and famished with perfect wings, its companionship is
no longer v\^ith worms, but with birds of the air. No
less remarkable are the variations in the growth-des^elop-
54 NATURE AND REVELATION.
Tnent of tlie frog. It is first known to lis as an egg.
This hatches into a tadpole, an animal destitute of limbs,
and propelling itself through the water, and breathing
through gills, as fishes do. After a season its gills disap •
pear, its tail is absorbed, articulate limbs grow, aad it
becomes a land-animal, breathing the air, and incapable
of livino^ in the water as it once did.
Still more remarkable, in some particulars at the least,
are the changes which mark the growth-development of
certain parasites. Of the common tape-worm. Dr. An-
drew Wilson, in his " Facts and Fictions of Zoology,"
tells us that " it begins life as a minute bodj-, set free
from its coverings and investments, and provided with a
special boring apparatus, consisting of six hooks. This
little creature will perish unless it can gain access to the
body of some warm-blooded quadruped ; and the pig
accordingly appears on the scene as the most convenient
host for the reception of the little embryo. But within
the body of the pig there is not the slightest possibility
of the little embryo becoming a tape- worm. The pig has
merely to perform the part of an unconscious nurse, and
to prepare its guest for a yet higher stage of existence.
Being swallowed by the pig,' the young parasite bores
its way through tlie tissues from the digestive system to
the muscles of the animal, and there develops around its
body a kind of bag or sack. In this state it represents
the cystic worm of old writers ; and occasionally it may
prefer the liver, brain, or even tlie eye of its first host to
the muscles in which it usually resides. Here, however,
it can attain no further development. If the pig dies a
natural death there can be no possibility of the tape-worm
stage, being evolved ; but if, as is most likely, the pig
suffers death at the butcher's hands, the little cystic
worms may be bought by mankind at large along with
EVOLUTIOI!?". 55
the pork in which they are contLiined. Such persons as
partake of this comestible in an imperfectly cooked con-
dition thereby quahfy themselves for becoming the hosts
of tape- worms, since, w^ien a cystic w^orm from the
muscle of the pig is introduced into the human stomach,
the little bladder or sack which the worm possesses drops
off, and the minute liead of the worm becomes attached
to the living membrane of the digestive system. Once
fixed in this position, the circle of development may be
said to be complete. A process of budding sets in, and
joint after joint is produced, until the adult tape-worm,
measuring, it may be, many feet in length, is developed,
while each egg of this full-grown being, if surrounded
with the requisite conditions, and if provided with a pig-
liost to begin with, wnll repeat the marvellous and compli-
cated life-history of its parent." (" Humboldt Library,"
No. 29, p. 46.)
In the case of man, the variations are not near so great
as in the cases just cited ; yet in the earlier stages of
his growth-development — in his embryonic condition —
he presents successive forms in which an active imagina-
tion can discover some resemblance to the fish, the reptile,
and the mammalian quadruped ; and even after birth,
when he first essays locomotion, it is usually after the
manner of a quadruped.
It has sometimes been said that at the starting-point
of their existence all plants and animals are alike. As a
late writer puts it, '' The apple which fell in Newton's
garden, Newton's dog Diamond, and Newton himself
began life at the same point." This is true in a very
limited sense only. The bodies of the apple, the dog,
and the man are all cellular structures ; and in every ag-
gregation of cellules there must be a first cellule around
which the aggregation takes place ; and it may be, and,
56' :n"ature and revelatio^^.
in fact, IS true, that with our best microscopes we have
not yet been able to discover any structural difference in
these first cellules of the apple, the dog, and the man.
But the fact that the apple-cellule always develops into
an apple, the dog-cellule into a dog, and the man-cellule
into a man, furnishes irrefragable proof that there is a
radical difference in these cellules, either in structure or
in the nature of the vitality with which they are endowed,
though our microscopes may not be able to discover it
This whole class of changes takes place under the law
of variation of growth-development. Co-ordinate with
this law, we find another law limiting the range of these
variations.
In the case of the acorn, under the law of variation, it
develops into the mature oak, and then the operation
of the law, as a lav/ of life, ceases. The oak dies, and
by chemical agencies is resolved into its original elements.
Its material falls back from its condition of organic mat-
ter to that of inorganic matter again. But before its
death the mature oak had produced its acorns, and from
these acorns other oaks grow just as the first oak did ;
and so this whole series of changes is repeated time after
time. The life-story of the silk-worm, the fros:, man,
and even the parasitic tape-v/orm in this particular is
the same with that of tlie oak.
The law of limitation in the case of growth-develop-
ment may be thus stated : Variation^ extreme as it may
he, never extends Jjeyond the life of the individual plant
or animal hi lohicJi it occurs. Grow^th-development
runs a certain deiinite round, and then we are brought
back to the same starting-point again. J^J growth-de-
velopment an oak will never become anything but an
oak, a silk-worm will never become anything but a silk-
worm to the end of time.
EVOLUTIOI^. 57
I ask the reader to notice this conchision at which we
have arrived, as many writers, ignorini^this law of limita-
tion — a lavv' as fixed and well determined as the law of
variation is — appeal to these variations of growth-develop-
ment in support of evolution, an hypothesis which pos-
tulates, as we shall see, the transformation of an oak,
not immediately, but by successive variations, into a silk-
worm, a silk- worm into a frog, and a frog into a man/-
* In a brief review of this paper, as originally published, Dr.
Woodrow writes: ."We have recently often heard that evolution
teaches that a cow is the descendant of the cabbage, and the oyster
of the mucous okra, and the like ; but we certainly did not expect
such caricatures to be equalled and even surpassed by what an ex-
professor of natural science designed to be an honest statement of
the truth. No evolutionist believes anything at all like that which
is here said to be evolution." {Southern Preshyierian, May 7th, 188'5,)
"If the doctrine of evolution be true, it follows that, however
diverse the different groups of animals and of plants may be, they
must all, at one time or other, have been connected by gradational
forms ; so that from the highest animals, whatever they may be,
down to the lov/cst speck of protoplasmic matter in which life can be
manifested, a series of gradations, leading from one end of the series
to the other, either exists or has existed. Undoubtedly that is a
necessary postula'e of the doctrine of evolution." (Huxley's "New
York Lectures on Evolution," Lecture II.)
I would ask the reader also to notice Darwin's probable genealogy
for man, as quoted in § 28. The frog may seem to Dr. Woodrow a
very disreputable ancestor ; but is it any more so than Darwin's
sea-squirt? Evolutionists cling most persistently to a statement of
their hypothesis in general terms— e. g., "The transformation by suc-
cessive differentiations of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous"
— "descent with modifications." Charles Darwin is the only evolu-
tionist, so far as I know, that has ventured to drop these generalities
and state the hypothesis in terms which will make its meaning plain
to the common reader. It may be true that in the actaal process of
evolution the cabbage may not have been in the particular line of
ancestry of the cow. See the section on " Divergence in Character,"
in Chapter IV. of Darwin's " Origin of Species.' ' It may have been the
nettle, as that has sharp thorns— a sort of vegetable horns— or possibly
58 NATURE AND REVELATION.
Growth-development moves in a circle, and has well
been styled, as to its variations, a system of revolution,
and not evolution.
§ 26. Changes which Last heyond the Life of the
Individual.
There is a large class of variations in plants and animals
which accompany changes of climate, domestication, and
cultivation, which under the operation of " the law of
heredity" are often perpetuated beyond the limits of a
single life.
As an instance of variation through change of climate,
take the case of our Indian corn, or maize. In Virginia
it growls to the average height of ten feet, and requires
five or six months to mature its grain. Wlien acclimated
in Vermont or Canada it grows to but half that height,
and matures its grain in half the time required in
Virginia. So the sweet potato {Convolvulus hatatus),
which in its native South blooms freely, producing
regular seed, by which it can be propagated as well as
by its tubers, has been acclimated as far nortJi as New
Jersey ; but there it never blooms, and has to be prop-
agated by its tubers alone. ♦
Domestication and cultivation have wrought such great
changes in many plants, that it is with difficulty we rec-
ognize the wild stock in the improved variety — e.g., the
crab apple in the Albemarle pippin, the dog rose in
the cloth of gold. As the result of domestication and
careful breeding, in the case of the horse we have the
Flemish dray horse and the Shetland pony ; and in the
case of the dog, the Saint Bernard and the Skye terrier.
the mullein, wlaich lias wooll}' leaves ; but there must have been some
plant which had reached the same stage of differentiation with the
cabbage that did occupy a place in the ancestry of the cow.
EVOLUTION. 59
Yariations of this kind, as they appear in our '' highly
improved varieties," have usually been effected little by
little. A slight improvement is wrought in one genera-
tion and perpetuated by the law of heredity ; it serves
as the starting-point for further improvement in the
succeeding generation, and so the highly improved
variety secured by continual cultivation or breeding will
present an accumulation of many variations, each in-
considerable in itself, but in the aggregate constituting
a great change.
The capacity for variation in this way, while very
great in some species of pUxnts and animals, notably in
those which man has usually carried with him in his mi-
grations, in others seems to be almost entirely wanting.
The Kentucky blue-grass has been carefully cultivated
for many years with no appreciable change. The
elephant has been domesticated in the East for many
centuries, and yet naturalists tell us that no improved
variety of the elephant has been secured.
Such is the law of variation governing this class of
changes — changes which by the operation of heredity are
perpetuated beyond the limits of a single life, and which
on this account would seem fitted for the purposes of
evolution. Are there any laws of limitation here, as in
the case of variations of growth-development ? I answer,
Yes.
1. Co-ordinate with the law of heredity tending to the
perpetuation of varieties once secured is the law of de-
generation through neglect — the laic of reversion to type,
as it is more frequently called. All skilful stock-raisers
know that any highly improved variety can be maintained
only by the greatest care and the most particular atten-
tion to certain rules of breeding which experience has
taught them.
60 NATURE AND REVELATION.
Professor Driimmond writes: *'If we neglect a gar-
den plant, then a natural principle of deterioration comes
in and changes it into a worse plant ; or, if we neglect
almost any of the domestic animals, they will rapidly re-
vert to wild and worthless forms again. If a man neglects
himself for a few years he will degenerate into a wild
and bestial savage, like the dehumanized men who are
discovered sometimes upon desert islands. The law of
reversion to type runs through all creation. " (" Xatural
Law in the Spiritual World," p. 99.)
2. Co-ordinate with the law of variation loe have heen
considering is a law of limitation^ confining this varia-
tion loithin the houndary lines of sjjecies, " the law of
the permanence of species,^'' as it is called. No two
flowers have varied more under cultivation than the rose
and the pelargonium ; yet the rose has always con-
tinued a rose, and the pelargonium a pelargonium. No
two domestic animals have undergone greater changes
by careful breeding than the horse and the dog ; yet the
horse has always continued a horse, and the dog a dog.
The question respecting '^ the permanence of species"
is not a new question in the scientific world. On the
contrary, it is a question which has engaged the attention
of naturalists from a very early date, and has been as
carefully examined and as thoroughly discussed as any
question in the whole range of natural science. Tliree
times in the course of the present century has it been
under discussion : in the early part of the century, in
connection with the introduction of the jiatural system
of classification in natural history ; later on, in connec-
tion with the question of the unity of the human race,
as that question was involved in the slavery controversy ;
and still more recently in connection v/ith the subject
we are now examining — evolution.
EVOLUTION. 61
The most thorough examination of this question on
purely scientific grounds that I know of is tliat of Dr.
Bachman, Professor of Natural History in the College
of Charleston, S. C. And it may be of interest to the
reader to know that Dr. Bachman was eno-ao'ed in mak-
ing his examination at the same time Darwin was prepar-
ing his " Origin of Species." As exhibiting the thorough-
ness of his examination, Dr. Bachman tells us : "A
visit to Europe afforded us an opportunity of carrying
with us American specimens of plants, birds, and quad-
rupeds of all species, either identical with or closely
allied to those of the Eastern Continent. The cabinets
of individuals, the public museums, and the zoological
collections of living animals were freely opened to us,
and the best naturalists of Europe and the world united
with us for many months in patient, minute, and varied
examinations and comparisons. These were conducted
in London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Dresden, and at the As-
sociation of European naturalists that met in Germany."
(" Unity of the Human Race," p. 11.) The result of
this protracted and careful study on the mind of Dr.
Bachman was a firm conviction that all natural species
of plants and animals are permanent ; that, vary widely
as plants and animals may, the variation never passes the
boundary line of natural species.
1 shall not attempt to give even a brief synopsis of this
discussion here— time forbids ; but instead thereof I
will ask your attention to the recently expressed conclu-
sions of several of the most eminent scientists of the day
— men who are entitled, if any are, to express an opinion
on the subject.
Prof essor Huxley writes : '' After much consideration,
and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views,
it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence now stands,
62 NATURE AKD REYELATIOK.
it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals hav-
ing all the characters exhibited bj species in nature has
ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or
natural" ('' Lay Sermons," p. 295.)
Professor De Quatrefages writes: ''I might here
accumulate a mass of analogous facts and details, but
over them all would appear a general fact including
them, wdiicli is the expression of a law ; and here is the
fact. Notwithstanding observations reaching back for
thousands of years, and made on hundreds of species, we
do not yet know a single example of intermediate species
obtained by the crossing of animals belonging to different
species." ('' Natural History of Man.")
Professor L. Agassiz writes : " Breeds {i.e., varieties)
among animals are the work of man ; species were created
by God." ("Methods of Study in Natural History,"
p. 147.)
The Duke of Argyll, in his " Primeval Man," recently
republished in this country, writes : " Some varieties of
form are effected in the case of a few animals by domes-
tication and by constant care in the selection of peculiar-
ities transmissible to the young ; but these variations
are all within certain limits^; and wherever human care
relaxes or is abandoned, the old forms return and the
selected characters disappear. The founding of new
forms by the union of different species, even when stand-
ing in close natural relation to each other, is absolutely
forbidden by the sentence of sterility which Nature pro-
nounces and enforces upon all hybrid offspring. And
so it results tliat man has never seen the origin of any
species. Creation by birth is the only kind of creation
he has ever seen ; and from this kind of creation he has
never seen a new species come." (" Primeval Man,"
pp. 39, 40.)
EVOLUTION. 63
Even Darwin virtually concedes tlie permanence of
natural species when he writes : "I doubt whether any
case of a perfectly fertile hybrid animal can be con-
sidered as thoroughly well authenticated." (" Origin of
Species," p. 23S.)
Tlie difficulty of settling beyond all controversy the
question under consideration arises mainly from two
sources — viz. : (1) the confounding of artificial and
natural species. The law concerns natural species alone.
Artificial species, erected by naturalists for convenience
of classification, are not always coterminous with nat-
ural species — e.g.^ some naturalists make four artificial
species of the one natural species of dog ; and (2) the
fact that the boundary line of many comparatively un-
known natural species of plants and animais has been, as
yet, but provisionally determined. Bat if the jadgment
in matters of fact of such men as Bachman, and Huxley,
and De Quatrefages, and Agassiz, and the Dnke of
Argyll is to be trusted, and science is to embody facts
and not fancies, I think it may be fairly claimed that, in
the present state of our knowledge, we are bound to
consider the law of the permanence of natural species as
an established law, and in all our reasoning to treat it
as such,
§ 27. Evolution as held hj Herlert Spencer.
Evolution is defined by Herbert Spencer as '' the
transformation of the honiogeneons, through successive
differentiations, into the heterogeneous.^'' ('^ First Prin-
ciples," p. 14:8.) In this, its widest range, evolution is
held by a few only.
In the words of Principal Dawson, it is a hypothesis
'* which solves the question of human origin by assuming
that human nature exists potentially in mere inorganic
64 NATURE AND REVELATION.
matter, and that a chain of spontaneous derivation con-
nects incandescent molecules or star dust vrith the world,
and with man himself." ('^The Earth and Man,"
p. 31G.)
Of evolution in this form Professor Tyndali writes :
" The question concerning the origin of life is, whether
it is due to a certain fiat — ' Let life be ' — or to a process
of evolution ? Was it potentially in matter at the begin-
ning, or was it inserted at a later period ? However
the conviction here or there may be influenced, the proc-
ess must be slow which commends this hypothesis of
natural evolution to the public mind. For what are the
core and essence of this hypothesis ? Strip it naked,
and you stand face to face with the notion, that not alone
the more ignoble forms of animalcular and animal life,
not alone the nobler forms of horse and lion, not alone
the wonderful and exquisite mechainsin of the human
body, but the human mind itself — emotion, intellect, will,
and all their phenomxcna — were once latent in a fiery
cloud. Surely, the mere statement of such a notion is
more than a refutation. 1 do not think that any holder
of this evolution hypothesis would say that 1 overstate
it or overstrain it in any way. I merely strip it of all
vagueness, and bring before you unclothed and unvar-
nished the notion by which it must stand or fall. Surely,
these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be
entertained by any sane mind." (London AthcncBum^
September 4th, 1870.)
Why is it that Professor Tyndali — and in this the great
body of scientists agree with him — rejects evolution in
this form so emphatically ? 1 answer, because it is ir-
reconcilable with one of the best-ascertained laws of biol-
ogy, or the science of life.
For a long time two op])Ositc theories respecting the
EVOLUTION". 05
origin of life divided the scientific world : one, that mat-
ter can of itself generate life ; the other, that life can
come only from pre-existing life. This subject, often
discussed before, in the last few years has been carefully
re-examined by some of our most eminent scientific
experimenters in connection with the discussion of e\^olu-
tion, m part, but more especially in connection with the
more practical question of the nature and propagation of
certain diseases in plants and animals — <?.^., the diseases
which, a few years ago, attacked the vine and the silk-
worm in France, and for a time threatened their de-
struction.
The result of this careful re-examination is stated by
Professor Druramond in the 'words : *' A decided and
authoritative conclusion has now taken place in science.
So far as science can settle anything, this question is
settled. The attempt to get the living out of the dead
has failed. Spontaneous generation has to be given up.
And it is now recognized on every hand that life can
come only from the touch of life." {^' Natural Law in
the Spiritual World," p. 63.) And in confirmation of
this statement Drummond quotes :
Tyndall. — '' I affirm that no shred of trustworthy ex-
perimental testimony exists to prove that life, in our
day, has ever appeared independently of antecedent
life."
Stirling. — '^ We are in the presence of the one incom-
municable gulf — the gulf of all gulfs — the gulf which
Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as pov/erless to efface as any
other material expedient that has ever been suggested
since the eyes of men first looked into it — the mighty
gulf between death and life."
Huxley. — ^' The present state of knowledge furnishes
us with no link between the living and the non-living."
66 NATURE AND REVELATION.
Yirchow. — ''Who ever recalls to mind tlie lamentable
failure of all the attempts made very recently to discover
a decided support ioviXiQ generatio ceqiiivoca in the lower
forms of transition from the inorganic to the organic
world, will feel it doubly serious to demand that this
theory, so utterly discredited, should be in any way ac-
cepted as the basis of all our views of life."
" All really scientific experience tells us that life can
be produced from a living antecedent only."
On such ground as this true science demands that
if we adopt the hypothesis of evolution at all, its work
must beffin with the existence of life in the world — it
can never bridge over the gulf which separates the living
from the non-living.
§ 2S. Evolution as held ly Charles Darwin.
Darwin excludes the inorganic world from the range
of the evolution which he contends for by the terms of
his definition — viz. : " descent with modifications. ' ' De-
scent in the sense in which he uses the word is " a pro-
ceeding from a progenitor, birth" (Webster), and so
implies the previous existence of life. He doubtless
believed all that geology teaches respecting the changes
our earth has undergone in the past, but aware of the fact
that an impassable gulf separated between the living and
the non-Uving— impassable in so far as " natural selec-
tion," the immediate agent in evolution, according to his
hypothesis, is concerned, he avoids all difficulties hence
arising by starting with certain "primordial living
beings," three or four at the most — possibly only one —
whose origin he does not attempt to account for, and de-
rives all other living beings, both plants and animals,
therefrom by evolution.
His doctrine, stated in his own words, is : " Man is de-
EVOLUTION. 67
scended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and
pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an in-
habitant of the Old World. This creature, if its whole
structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have
been classed among the quadrumana, as surely as would
the common and more ancient of the New World mon-
keys. The quadrumana and all the higher mammals are
probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal" —
the marsupial most common in Virginia is the opos-
sum — '^ and this through a long line of diversified forms,
either from some reptile-like or some amphibian-like
creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In
the dim obscurity of the past we can see that the pro-
genitor of all the vertebrates must have been an aquatic
animal, provided with branchia" — i.e.^ gills — '' with the
two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most
important organs of the body, such as the brain and
heart, imperfectly developed. This animal seems to
have been more like the larvse of our existing ascidians"
— sea-squirts, as they are commonly called — ''than any
other known form. " ('' Descent of Man," vol. 2, p. 372.)
As Darwin limits the ranoje of evolution in one direc-
tion by excluding inorganic nature— all that preceded
the existence of life in the world — so others, of eminent
attainments in science, limit its range in the opposite
direction, and exclude the origin of man from its phe-
nomena.
If the conclusion reached in our examination of the
question respecting primeval man be accepted — viz.,
*' That man commenced his course as a civilized being,
believing in the one only living and true God " (§ 23), it
is conceded on all hands that he cannot be the product of
evolution from a brute.
Professor De Quatrcfages, at the close of a lengthened
68 MATURE AND REVELATION.
discussion of the subject of man's origin, writes : '' To
sum up, tlie theory that man is descended from the
monkey by means of successive modifications is a brilHant
fancy which has no support in precise facts ; in most
cases it depends upon possibilities, and often upon pos-
sibilities in flagrant opposition to facts. In tlie name
of scientific truth I affirm that we have had for ancestors
neither gorilla nor ourang-outang nor chimpanzee."
(" Natural History of Man," p. 86.)
Principal Dawson writes : " Evolution cheats us with
the semblance of a man w^itliout the reality. Shave and
paint your ape as you may, clothe him and set him uj^on
his feet, still he fails greatly of ' the human form
divine ;' and so it is with him morally and spiritually
as well. We have seen that he wants the instinct of im-
mortality, the love of God, the mental and spiritual
power of exercising dominion over the earth." (" The
Earth and Man," p. 395.)
The possession of intellect and conscience ; the capac-
ity for distinguishing between truth and error, right and
wrong ; the ability to communicate thought by language,
and to originate the fine arts — painting, sculpture, archi-
tecture — and to start and carry forward all that is em-
braced in our modern civilization, to eay nothing of
anatomical differences, make between the ape and man
not as wide a gulf, it may be, as that which separates
between the living and the non-living, but a gulf as
utterly imj^assable.
§ 29. Evolution in its Limited Range.
In view of the facts stated in the last section, such
naturalists as Virchowof Germany, Wallace of England,
and Dana of our own country unite with Do Quatre-
EVOLUTION". 69
fages and Dawson in rejecting the liypotliesis of evolu-
tion as applied to man.
Taking the hypothesis, noio, in its limited range as
heginning the series with Darxiohi's primordial living
heings, and excluding the origin of man from its phe-
nomena — and it is with these limitations it is generally
held, where it is held at all — m^y we accept it, on scien-
tific grounds, as prohahly true f
I put the question in this form, because evolution is,
to use the words of Professor Huxley, " as yet a hypoth-
esis, and not the theory of species." ('^ Lay Sermons,"
p. 295.)* And a hypothesis is merely ''a provisional
explanation of phenomena," and therefore to be held
ready to be given up whenever a more satisfactory ex-
planation is offered, and should never be accounted as
* Evolutionists differ, not only in the range which they assign
to its operation, but also as to the means by which this evolution is
effected. The following "conspectus" of the several theories is
from Professor Winchell's " Doctrine of Evolution," pp. 44, 45.
"Through a force which is a mode of the unknowable." — Spencer.
Through external forces.
*' Physical surroundings (Transmutation).*'— De Ilaillet.
Conflicts of individuals, or "natural selection."
Embracing mental and moral nature.
"By insensible gradations {Variative)." —Darwin, Eaeckel, Chap-
man, etc.
" With occasional leaps {Saltative)."— Huxley.
*' Excluding the mind and body of mem."— Wallace.
Through an internal force, influenced by external conditions.
"Perpetual effort to improve {Gonative^variative)." —Lamarck, St.
Hilaire.
Genetic process exclusively {Filiaiive).
" Prolonged development of embryo {Variative-JHiative)."
_« Vestiges."
"Accelerated development {Variaiive-filiaiivey —Hyatt and Cope.
"Extraordinary births {Saliative-ihamogeney — Parsons, Owen,
Mivart.
*« Partheno.Genesis {Saliaiive-jUiativey —Ferris y Kolliker.
70 NATURE AND REVELATIOCT.
an integral part of science itself. True science is made
up of a statement of facts and of conclusions readied
by reasoning upon tliese facts ; and lience, in tlie his-
tory of science, Y\^liile hypotheses innumerable have
arisen, been popular for a season, and then passed away
and been forgotten, true science has remained unchanged.
Huxley rests the claim of evolution to acceptance mainly
upon the gradual advance in the type of living beings,
as we learn the history of organic nature from a study
of the fossiliferous rock strata of the earth, and the
satisfactory explanation which it gives of the natural
grouping of plants and animals, as set forth in the
natural system of classification, now universally adopted
by botanists and zoologists.
Darwin, in addition to this, urges certain facts respect-
ing the geographical distribution of plants and animals
—the variation which animals undergo in the earlier
stages of their existence, as they present themselves in
our study of embryology, and the existence of rudi-
mentary organs in certain animals — all which he contends
are better and more fully explained by the hypothesis of
evolution than in any other way.
Before entering upon a 'particular examination of
these several points, 1 would remind the reader that
there is another hypothesis — we will call it a hypothesis
for the present— covering the same ground that evolu-
tion does, which was at one time universally adopted,
and even now is held by men of no mean attainments
in science — e.g.^ Louis Agassiz and Principal Dawson—
viz. : the hypothesis of creation — creation by an almighty,
intelligent being, working according to a plan, and with
a definite end in view. And I will ask him especially
to notice two particulars in this hypothesis, as it is set
forth in the oldest cosmogony extant— a cosmogony which
EVOLUTION". 71
has moulded the thoughts on this subject of many genera-
tions.
(1) Creation is not a single act of the Almighty, by
which our world, embracing organic as well as inorganic
nature, was brought into being, but a continuous work,
or succession of acts, extending over a long period, but
terminating with the creation of man ; and (2) in the
creation of plants and animals they were not brought
into being as single individuals, or pairs at the most, as
evolution demands ; but when the Creator spake He said :
^' Let the waters bring forth abundantly (literally swarm
forth) the moving creature that hath life, and fowls
that they may fly above the earth, in the open firmament
of heaven." (Gen. 1 : 20.) The result of such a work
of creation was at once to people the air, the earth, and
the sea with many individuals or pairs of every species
intended to inhabit them — man, the species homo,
being the only exception to this general rule.
§ 30. ArgumenU for Evolidion.
Turning now to an examination of the several argu-
ments by which evolution is urged upon our acceptance
by its advocates, we will consider them in order, begin-
ning with the least important.
1. The existence of rudimentary organs in certain
plants and animals. Giving instances of rudimentary
organs, Darwin writes : ''In the mammalia the males pos-
sess rudimentary mammre ; in snakes one lobe of the lungs
is rudimeatary ; in birds the hastard-wing may safely be
considered a rudimentary digit, and in some species is
60 far rudimentary that it cannot be used for flight.
What can be more curious than the presence of teeth in
foetal whales, which when grown up liave not a tooth in
their heads, or the teeth which never cut through the
72 NATURE AIs^D REVELATION".
gums in the upper jaws of unborn calves !" And sub-
sequently he adds : "It appears probable that disuse has
been the main agent in rendering organs rudimentary.
It would at first lead by slow steps to the more and more
complete reduction of a part, until at last it became
rudimentary, as in the case of the eyes of the animals
inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds in-
habiting oceanic islands, which hav^e seldom been forced
by beasts of prey to take flight, and have ultimately lost
the power of flying." (" Origin of Species," pp. 4-06,
408.)
In reply 1 would say, Darwin's explanation of the
origin of rudimentary organs may be the true one — in
some cases it doubtless is ; but (1) I do not see how,
when thus explained, they furnish any support to the
hypothesis of evolution ; the cases as he states them are
cases of degeneration, and not of evolution ; and (2) the
variations here cited are not variations originating new
species, but simply new varieties of an old species.
Kespecting one of the blind animals inhabiting the Mam-
moth Cave in Kentucky — the cave rat — Darwin tells us
'^ two of them were captured by Professor Silliman at
about half a mile distance from the mouth of the cave,
and therefore not in the prof oundest depths. Their eyes
were lustrous and of large size ; and these animals, as I
am informed by Professor Silliman, after having been ex-
posed for about a month to a graduated light, acquired a
dim perception of objects." ("Origin of Species," ch. 5.)
The blindness of this cave rat no more entitled it to be
considered a species dillerent from that inhabiting the
country adjacent to the cave than the blindness of the
blind man entitles him to be considered a species of man
different from the men around him whose eyes yet serve
the purposes of sight. 'No naturalist, in so far as I know.
EVOLUTION. 73
has ever proposed to classify blind men even as a variety
of the species homo ; and certainly not as a new species.
2. The facts of ciiibrijology are cited in support of the
Mjpo thesis of evolution. On this subject Spencer writes :
^' That the uneducated and the ill-educated should think
that the hypothesis that all races of beings, man Inclusive,
may in process of time have been evolved from the
simplest monad, a ludicrous one, is not to be wondered at.
But for the physiologist, who knows that every individual
being is so evolved, who knows, further, that in their
earliest condition the germs of all plants and animals what-
ever are so similar, that there is no appreciable distinc-
tion among them which would enable ns to determine
whether a particular molecule is the germ of a conferva
or of an oak, of a zoophyte or of a man ; for him to
make a difficulty of the matter is inexcusable. Surely, if
a single cell may, when subjected to certain influences,
become a man in the space of twenty years, there is
nothing absurd in the hypothesis that under certain other
influences a cell may in the course of millions of years
give origin to the human race. The two processes are
generically the same, and dilfer only in length and com-
plexity." C Progreso," Hmnbcldt Library, No. 17,
p. ^Q^k)
To this 1 reply : (1) All the variations with which the
study of embryology has made us acquainted, and to
which Spencer refers in the above-quoted paragraph,
are variations of growth-development, and, as we have
already seen (§ 25), belong to a system of revolution, and
not evolution ; they are parts of a scries which runs a
certain round, returning ever to the same starting-point
again ; they belong to the history of an individual hfe,
and are repeated only as that life is repeated. In the
case of the silk-worm moth, it is first an Qg^, then a
74 NATURE AND REVELATION.
caterpillar, then a clirysalis, and lastly a winged insect ;
and just such as it is to-day it was six thousand years
ago, in the garden of Eden ; and although it has passed
throuo^h this whole series of chano;es six thousand times,
it has made no upward progress in its form and structure ;
there has been through its growth -variations no evolu-
tion into a creature of a higher order ; (2) these vari-
ations of growth-development exhibit, it is true, possi-
bilities of change in animal structure, and that is all
that can be claimed for them. De Quatrefages Vfell
says : " "When we get upon the ground of possibility, I
know not where we shall stop. Everything is possible
except that which implies contradiction. Consequently,
we are no longer on the ground of science, which de-
mands positive, precise facts. We are living in the land
of romance." ('' Natural History of Man," p. 82.)
3. The geographical distribution of plants and animals
is appealed to by evolutionists ; especially the fact that
certain species are to be found in certain countries only
— e.g., the kangaroo in Australia and the sloth in South
America ; and it is said, if we suppose them to be the
product of evolution, we can readily understand how,
having been evolved in the countries in which they are
found, they have not yet spread to other parts of the
earth.
To this I re2:)ly, True ; but on the hypothesis of crea-
tion, we may suppose, either that they were never
created in the countries in which they are wanting, as a
wise Creator would never have created tropical animals
in the Arctic regions, or that, having once existed widely
diffused, they have died out in all except the lands in
which they are now found. The disappearance by death
of species of plants and animals from a country is an
event of frequent occurrence in the history of our world.
EVOLUTION". 75
The dodo, an immense bird, once inhabiting the islands
of Bourbon and Mauritius, has become extinct since the
discovery of those islands by Europeans, in the course of
the last hundred and fifty years. " Pictet catalogues
ninety-eight species of mammals which have inhabited
Europe in the post-glacial period. Of these, fifty-seven
still exist unchanged, and the remaining forty-one have
disappeared." (" The Earth and Man," p. 357.)
The wide distribution of certain species of animals —
e.g,^ the oyster — and the oyster, in some of its varieties,
is to be found on the coast of almost every country within
the torrid and temperate zones — is very difficult to account
for on the hypothesis of evolution, which traces all the
oysters in the world back to an original oyster, evolved
from some lower moUusk, at some one point from which
they must all have distributed themselves. On this point
Darwin writes : *' Turning to geographical distribution,
the difficulties encountered on the theory of ' descent
ivith modification ' are serious enough. All the in-
dividuals of the same species, and all the species of the
same genus, or even higher group, must have descended
from common parents ; and therefore, in however dis-
tant and isolated parts of the world they may now be
found, they must in the course of successive generations
have travelled from some one point to all others. We
are often wholly unable to conjecture how this could have
been effected." (" Origin of Species," p. 41i.) If the
hypothesis of evolution seems to possess some little
advantage over that of creation in our study of the
kangaroo, '^ the tables are turned " comj)letely when we
come to the study of the oyster.
4. A fourth argument in support of evolution is
founded upon the grculual advance in type of living
creatures^ as we learn the history of organic nature from
76 KATUEE AND KEVELATIOi^.
an examination of tlie fossiliferous rock strata of the
eartii ; and the satisfactory exjplanation which it fur-
nishes of the natural groupings of lylants and animals^
as set forth in the natural system of classification now
universally adopted by botanists and zoologists. On this
ground, mainly, Professor Huxley advocates the hypoth-
esis ; and, in my judgment, it furnishes the strongest ar-
gument which has yet been brought forward in its favor.
Evolution does afford a very simple and a very beauti-
ful explanation of both the gradual advance in type of
living creatures and the natural groupings of plants and
animals. But the theorj^ of creation by an almighty and
intelligent creator, working with a plan determined on at
the beginning, affords, 1 think, an explanation equally
simple and equally beautiful. Of our system of natural
classification Louis Agassiz writes : " Are our systems the
inventions of naturalists, or only their readings of the
Book of Nature ? ... If these classifications are
not mere inventions, if they are not an attempt to
classify for our own convenience the objects we study,
then they are the thoughts which, whether we detect
them or not, are expressed in nature ; then nature is the
work of thouglit, the product Of intelligence, carried out
according to plan, therefore premeditated ; and in our
study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts
of the Creator, reading His conceptions, interpreting a
system that is His, and not ours." (" Methods of Study
in Natural History," pp. 13, 1-1.)
I have now given the reader a brief but, I think, a
fair statement of tlie arguments by w4iich Darwin and
other evolutionists support their hypotheses, with my
answers thereto. These arguments may be found stated
at large in '' Tlie Origin of Species," first published in
1859. In the Southern Presbyterian Review for July,
EVOLUTION. 77
1884:, Dr. "Woodrow published his article on evolution,
and in this he advances the same four arguments in sup-
port of it by which Darwin advocated it, and which are
briefly stated above. His is the latest statement of the
argument for evolution, by one fully competent to make
a fair statement, that I hav^e seen. And 1 call the
reader's attention to it now, that he may note the fact
that twenty-five years of earnest study and voluminous
writing on the part of such men as Spencer and Huxley
and Mivart has added nothing really new to the argu-
ment originally advanced by Darwin.
§ 31. Borpve Ohjections to JEvolution.
The hypothesis of evolution has been objected to on
several grounds. Among the most important of these
are the following — viz. :
1. In the case of certain natural groups — e.g. , the group
of mOilusks inhabiting chambered shells, such as the
nautilus pompilius of our day — and this group stands at
the head of the class of mollusks — the higher species ap-
pear first and not the lowest^ as evolution would reqxiire.
Their history, if they be the product of evolution, is one
of deo-radation and not advance in the scale of beine:.
This truth, which has been recognized from the first, has
become more and more evident as the discussion lias pro-
ceeded.
Grant Allen is the only naturalist, in so far as I know,
who has taken the hypothesis of evolution with him out
into the field, and attempted to apply it in detail to plants
and animals. This he has done in a very interesting
series of papers, embraced in his '^ Evolutionist at Large"
and ^' Vignettes from Nature." The conclusion to
which he comes on this point he gives us in these words :
*' The real fact is, that by far the greatest number of
78 NATURE AND REVELATION.
plants and animals are degraded types — products of retro-
gression rather than of upward development. Take it
on tlie whole, evolution is always producing higher and
still higher forms of life ; but at the same time stragglers
are always falling into the rear, as the world marches
onward, and learning how to get their livelihood in some
new and disreputable manner, rendered possible by
nature's latest achievements. The degraded types live
lower lives, often at the expense of the higher, but they
live on somehow, just as the evolution of man was fol-
lowed by the evolution of some fifty new parasites, on
purpose to feed upon him." (Humboldt Library, No.
33, p. 5.) That " the evolution of man was followed by
the evolution of some fifty new parasites on purpose to
feed upon him," if it means anything, must mean that
at the same time that man was developed from the
highest of brutes, by an evolution upward, some fifty
parasites were developed from the lower orders of the
animal kingdom, by an evolution downward — an evolu-
tion of degradation. If this be a correct representation
of the facts in the case — if plants and animals are as
often ' ' the products of retrogression as of upward de-
velopment," then it follows, as a necessary consequence,
that the true starting-point of the animal kingdom was
not with the low^est and simplest in structure — e.g.^ the
eozoon — but somewhere' about the middle of the line, as
from this point only could evolution have proceeded in
both directions. This conclusion is utterly irreconcilable
with " the record of the rocks."
2. The great number of transition forms required to
connect species with species, according to the evolution
hypothesis, cannot he found. Darwin accounts for their
absence from the kingdom of living organic nature as it
surrounds us to-day by supposing that there is now, and
EVOLUTION. 79
has been all along, '' a struggle for existence, with a sur-
vival of the fittest," and that in this struggle these transi-
tion forms have disappeared. If we admit this explana-
tion as to the present, it does not touch the case of the
past. If in the struggle for existence innumerable
species have perished all along the line from the begin-
ning—and Darwin expressly admits that this must have
been true — how comes it that in the fossil if erous rocks,
that vast burjing-ground of the ages, none of their graves
are to be found ? Evolution demands a continuous chain,
<jonnecting the latest with the earliest forms ; while the
fossilif erous rocks disclose only detached portions of a
chain, with innumerable missing links.
On this point Darwin writes : " Why, then, is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such inter-
mediate links ? Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely graduated organic chain ; and this, perhaps,
is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I
believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological
record. ' ' And he subsequently adds : ' ' The noble science
of geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of
the record. The crust of the earth, with its embedded
remains, must not be looked at as a well-liUed museum,
but as a poor collection made at hazard, and at rare inter-
vals." ("Origin of Species," ch. 15.) And Huxley
writes : " It is only about the ten-thousandth part of the
accessible parts of the earth that lias been examined care-
fully. Therefore, it is with justice that the most
thoughtful of those who are concerned in these inquiries
insist continually upon the imperfection of the geological
record ; for, I repeat, it is absolutely necessary, from the
nature of things, that that record should be of the most
fragmentary and imperfect character." (Humboldt
so NATURE AND REVELATION.
Library, No. 16, p. 192.) And yet, on the authority
of this " most fragmentary and imperfect record," cover-
ing *^ only about the ten-thousandth part of the acces-
sible parts of the earth," Huxley does not hesitate to sat
aside the Mosaic cosmogony as irreconcilable with the
plain teachings of geology.
But is this record so exceedingly imperfect ? In liis
'^ Primeval Man" the Duke of Argyll writes : " It is true
that this record — the geological record — is imperfect.
But, as Sir Roderick Murchison has long ago proved, there
are parts of that record Vv^hich are singularly complete,
and in those parts we have the proofs of creation, with-
out any indication of development. The Silurian rocks,
as regards oceanic life, are perfect and abundant in the
forms they have preserved, yet there are no fish. The
Devonian Age foUoAved tranquilly and without a break ;
and in the Devonian sea suddenly fish appear — appear
in shoals and in forms of the highest and most perfect
type. There is no trace of links or transitional forms
between the great class of mollusks and the great class
of fishes. There is no reason whatever to suppose that
such forms, if they had existed, can have been destroyed
in deposits which have preserved in wonderful perfection
the minutest organisms." (^'Primeval Man,'' pp. 45,
^6.)
§ 32. Two Fatal Objections to Ecolution.
Besides the objections stated above, there are two fatal
objections to the evolution hypothesis, not only in the
form in which Darwin states it, but in any and all its
forms, either of which should, I think, settle the ques-
tion as a question between it and the theory of creation.
1. In nature— o^itside the disturbing agency of intel-
ligent man — there is no tendency to permanent change
EVOLUTION. 81
manifested hy plants a.i\(L animals — no tendency to
advance in structure ; but, on the contrary, a manifest
tendency to preserve the status quo of their beginning.
Variations, undoubtedly, do sometimes occur in plants
and animals in a wild state, or state of nature ; but when
they do occur, the law of " reversion to type " (§ 28)
comes in, and soon wipes them out again. The variety
of grape known as the scuppernong, a favorite variety
throughout the South, I have reason to believe is a
variety produced " in a wild state ;" and it can be prop-
agated by layering or dividing the roots only. AVhen-
ever the attempt has been made to go back to the seed,
the result has been a vine bearing not the yellowish-green
scuppernong, with its delicious flavor, but the well-
known black muscadine.
The highly improved varieties of animals — and the
same is true of plants — can be maintained only by the
greatest care on the part of the stock-breeder. Let him
turn out the finest Jersey cow in all his herd to run
wild on the prairies and mingle with the wild stock
there, and she will either die without issue, or her de-
scendants will degenerate from generation to generation,
until they become undistinguishable from the wild stock
around them.
h\ the ancient painting and sculptures of Egypt and
Africa we have depicted many plants and animals as
they existed three or four thousand years ago ; and by
comparing these representations with the same plants
and animals as they exist to-day, we learn that there has
been no change in all this time. This Darwin himself
admits. (See " Origin of Species," p. 152.) Louis Agas-
siz, a few years ago, made an examination of the Florida
reefs. After carefully comparing the form and structure
of the coral polyps at work there to-day with those that
82 NATURE AND REVELATION.
must have built the oldest reefs, he writes : '^ In these
seventy thousand years has there been any change in the
corals livinir in the Gulf of Mexico ? I answer most
emphatically, No. Astreans, porites, meandi'inas, and
madrepores were represented by exactly the same species
seventy thousand years ago as they are now. " (" Methods
of Study in Katural History," p. 190.) Principal Daw-
son gives us the results of his observations on this point,
in the case of certain mollusks, in these words : '' I have
for many years occupied a httle of my leisure in collect-
ing the numerous species of mollusks and other marine
animals existing in a sub-fossil state in the post-pliocene
clays of Canada, and comparing them with their modern
successors. I do not know how long these animals have
lived. Some of them, certainly, go back into the ter-
tiary, and recent computation w^ould place even the
Glacial Age at a distance from us of more than a thou-
sand centuries. Yet after carefully studying about two
hundred species, and of some of them many hundred of
specimens, I have arrived at the conclusion that they
are absolutely unchanged." ("The Earth and Man,"
pp. 358, 359.)
''Artificial" and ''natural" selection are used by
Darwin and Huxley as correlative terms. Thus, Dar-
win writes: " Can the principle of selection, which we
have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under
nature ? I think w^e shall see that it can act most effi-
ciently." " As man can produce, and certainly has pro-
duced, a great result by his methodical and unconscious
means of selection, what may not natural selection effect ?"
" As man can produce a great result with domestic
animals and plants by adding up in any given direction
individual differences, so could natural selection— but far
more easily — from having incomparably longer time for
EVOLUTION". 83
action." (^'Origin of Species," cli. 4.) Under tlie
term " artificial selection" tliey include all the agencies,
whatever may be their nature, through which intelligent
man has secured our improved varieties of plants and
animals. By "natural selection," then, they must
mean a natural agency, which, in the wild condition of
plants and animals, and without any guidance of intel-
ligence, shall accomplish the same, and even far greater
results. Now, in view of the facts stated above, I say
natural selection has no existence ; it is a creature of
Darwin's imagination. The manifest tendency in nature
is to preserve the status quo of its beginning.
Professor Huxley virtually admits this. " There is no
fault," writes he, "to be found with Mr. Darwin's
method, then ; but it is another question whether he
has fultilled all the conditions imposed by that method.
Is it satisfactorily proved, in fact, that species may be
originated by selection ? that there is such a thing
as natural selection f^ that none of the phenomena
* Dr. Woodrow charges me with perverting this declaration of
Professor Huxley. In the Southern Fresbylerian of May 7th, 1885, he
"writes: "Any one can see that the question Professor Huxley is
here discussing is not evolution, but whether natural selection is
the process by which evolution is efEected. . . . The reason why
we have taken time to make this point perfectly clear is that Dr. Arm-
strong quotes (as many others have done during this discussion) some
of the expressions above given as if they were applied by Professor
Huxley to evolution, thus wholly misunderstanding and therefore
perverting what he has said." To this I reply :
1. If Dr. Woodrow will read carefully what I have written, he will
see that my quotation is a perfectly fair one— a quotation of Pro-
fessor Huxley's virtual admission that there is no such thing as
natural selection, in support of my position that natural selection
has no existence.
2. Professor Huxley, as we all know, is a pronounced evolution-
ist ; and Professor Winchell correctly represents him as teaching that
evolution is effected by natural selection, the only difference betweea
84 NATURE AND REVELATION.
are inconsistent with tlie origin of species in this way ?
If these questions can be answered in the affirmative,
Mr. Darwin's views step out of the rank of hypotheses
into that of proved theories ; but so long as the
evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing
that affirmation, so long to our minds must the new
doctrine be content to remain amono- the former — an
extremely valuable and in the highest degree probable
doctrine — indeed, the only extant hypothesis which is
worth anything in a scientific point of view, but still a
hypothesis, and not yet the theory of species." ('' Lay
Sermons," pp. 294, 295.)
In explanation of Professor Huxley-s remark, quoted
above, that evolution is ^' the only extant hypothesis
which is worth anything in a scientific point of view,"
1 must tell the reader that he rejects the theory of crea-
tion as unscientific, because incapable of verification by
direct observation in our day — a position involve* ng a very
false view of the nature of science, as I think, and cer-
tainly untenable by one who confesses himself compelled
to admit of creation, or something equivalent thereto, at
two points in the history of our world — viz. ; the origin
of matter and the origin of life.
II. The law of the jpermanance of species — that, how-
ever great the variation wrought, under the operation of
natural or artificial agencies, may be, it never passes the
boundary line of species, is irreconcilable with the
hypothesis of evolution. That hypothesis is, that each
higher type of 2:)lant and animal has been evolved from
him and Darwin being that while Darwin holds that natural selection
always proceeds by " insensible gradations," Professor Huxlej'^ holds
that there are "occasional leaps" (^ 29, note). The reconciliation of
this belief with the implied admission, quoted above, is his work,
not mine.
EVOLUTION". 85
the next below it, and so demands the passage of the
boundary lines, not of one species only, but of all ; and
so the boundary lines of genera, orders, and classes as
well — all that intervenes between primordial living beings
and man.
The proof of the permanence of species I have already
given you (§ 26) ; and if we are to proceed upon
principles of true science, we must consider that question
settled, at least for the present, and treat it as a settled
question ; and so doing, we cannot accept the hypothesis
of evolution.
You vrill naturally ask me. How do evolutionists rec-
oncile that hypothesis with this law ? Herbert Spencer
slurs over the dithculty in this style : '' We find scat-
tered over the globe vegetable and animal organisms
numbering, of the one kind (according to Humboldt),
some three hundred and twenty thousand species, and
of the other, some two million species (see Carpenter) ;
and if to these we add the numbers of animal and vege-
table species that have become extinct, we may safely
estimate the number of species i\\2it exist and have existed
on the earth at not less than ten millions. Well, which
is the most rational theory about these ten millions of
species ? Is it most likely that there have been ten mill-
ions of special creations ? or is it most likely that by
continual modifications, due to change of circumstances,
ten millions of varieties have been produced, as varieties
are being produced still?" (''Progress: its Law and
Cause.") The ten million are species when it suits
Spencer's purpose, and, presto, the same ten million are
but varieties v/hen that suits his purpose best. Such
juggling with terms is unworthy an honest scientist.
Others have attempted a reconciliation by supposing
that this lav/ has not always existed ; that far back in
86 NATURE AND REVELATION.
ages past it is possible that a different order of things
may have prevailed. On this point listen to De Quatre-
fages : '^ In many cases these possibilities are opposed to
the facts that transpire in om' da^^, so that the reasoning
comes to this ; but is it not possible that events took
place in former times differently from those which hap-
pen to day ? Serious science, gentlemen, cannot accept
this mode of reasoning. It does not admit changes in
the laws which rule this world, in those which concern
organic beings any more than in those which concern
inorganic bodies." ('' I^latural History of Man," p. 82.)
§ 33. Conclusions.
The reader has now the whole case before him ; the
arguments for and against the hypothesis of evolution
briefly, but I think fairly, stated."^ The justice of the
following remarks of the Duke of Argyll no thoughtful
scientist can question — viz.: " If the theory of develop-
ment can be shown to involve difficulties of conception
wdiich are quite as great as those which it professes to
remove, then it ceases to have any standing ground at
all. An hypothesis which ^escapes from j^articular
difficulties by encountering others which are smaller
may be tolerated, at least provisionally. But an hypothe-
sis which, to avoid an alternative supposed to be incon-
ceivable, adopts another alternative encompassed by
many difficulties quite as great, is not entitled even to
provisional acceptance." ("Primeval Man," p. 48.)
For this reason, and on grounds purely scientific, we re-
ject the hypothesis of evolution in all its forms. When
Yirchow, " at the late tercentenary of the University of
Edinburgh, in the presence of the assembled magnates of
* For a further discussion of the theory of creation, see §§ 51-54.
EVOLUTION. 87
Europe, . . . declared with great empliasis tliat ' evolu-
tion has no scientific basis' " {Christian Thought for
July, 1884), he expressed just the conclusion to which, in
view of all the facts of the case, we feel constrained to
come. Tlie same judgment had been previously ex-
pressed by the Duke of Argyll in the same words : " The
various hypotheses of development," writes he, ''of
which Mr. Darwin's theory is only a new and special ver*
sion, . . . are destitute of proof ; and in the form which
they have yet assumed, it may justly be said that they
involve such violations of or departures from all that we
know of the existing order of things as to deprive them
of all scientific basis." (" Reign of Law," 5th ed., p. 28.)
But a few weeks ago it was stated in the public prints
that the school authorities in Prussia had prohibited the
teaching of evolution in their public schools. Its popu-
larity, great for a season, is, if I mistake not, on the
wane. The earlier chapters of its history in our day
were bright, but bright with a delusive promise. And I
will venture the prediction that its last chapter — and
those now living will have the opportunity of reading
that chapter — will be but a record of what Huxley calls
the oft-repeated tragedy of science — the slaughter of a
beautiful theory by ugly facts.*
* The most recent expressions of opinion on this subject which
I have seen, both of them from men of deservedly high standing in
the scientific world, are as follows — viz. :
Principal Dawson, of Canada, writes : " The doctrine of evolution,
as held by a prominent school of German and English biologists, I
regard as equally at variance with science, revelation, and common-
sense, and destitute of any foundation in fact. It belongs, in truth,
to the region of those illogical paradoxes and loose speculations
which have ever haunted the progress of knowledge, and have been
dispelled only by increasing light. For this reason I have always re-
fused to recognize the dreams of materialistic evolution as of any
88 IS'ATURE AI^D REVELATION".
§ 34. Relation of Revelation to Evolution as Taught hy
Huxley.
The evolution hypothesis, when tahen in its ividest
range, *' wliich solves the question of human origin by
assuming that human nature exists potentially in mere
organic matter, and that a chain of spontaneous deriva-
tion connects incandescent molecules or star-dust with
the world and with man himself," is, beyond all ques-
tion, atheistic ; and it is adopted and defended bj^ its
advocates as an atheistic hypothesis. In this form it is
confessedly irreconcilable with revelation and the Chris-
tian faith.
Just how far Professor Huxley adopts the evolution
scientific significance, or, indeed, as belonging to science at all."
{Philadelphia Presbyterian, July 11th, 1885.)
Under date of August 2d, 1885, Professor George E. Post writes :
" Yesterday I was in the Natural History department of the British
Museum. I had business touching some fossils which I found in
theLattakia miocene and pliocene clay beds, and about wliich I wrote
an article which ai3peared in Nature last year. Mr. Etheridge, F.E.S.,
kindly examined and named them for me. I was anxious to hear
what a first-rate working scientist, with perhaps the largest oppor-
tunity for induction in the world, would say on Darwinian evolution.
So, after he had shown me all the wonders of the establishment, I
asked him whether, after all, this was not the working out of mind
and providence. lie turned to me with a clear, honest look into my
eyes, and replied : ' In all this great museum there is not a particle
of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine tenths of the talk of
evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation, and
wholly unsupported by fact. Men adopt a theory, and then strain
their facts to support it. I read all their books, but they make no im-
pression on my belief in the stability of species. Moreover, the talk
of the great antiquity of man is of the same value. There is no such
thing as a fossil man. I^Ion are ready to regard you as a fool if you
do not go with them in all their vagaries ; but this museum is full of
proofs of the utter falsity of their views.' " {Central Presbyterian,
September IGth, 1885.)
EVOLL'TION. 89
hypothesis in this form I will not nndertake to say, but
will give the reader his statement of his belief in his own
w^ords. In liis New York Lectures he writes : " The
hypothesis of evolution supposes that, at any compara-
tively late period of past time, our imaginary spectator "
(he had previously written, " I will ask you to iioagine
what would have been visible to a spectator of the events
which constitute tlie history of the earth") '^ would meet
with a state of things very similar to that which now
obtains ; but that the likeness of the past to the present
wonld gradually become less and less in proportion to
the remoteness of his period of observation from the
present day ; that the existing distribution of mountains
and plains, of rivers and seas, would show itself to be
the product of a slow process of natural change, operat-
m<y upon more and more widely different antecedent
conditions of the mineral framework of the earth, until,
at length, in place of that framework, he would behold
only a vast nebulous mass, representing the constituents
of the sun and of the planetary bodies. Preceding the
forms of life which now exist, our observer would see
animals and plants not identical with them, but like them,
becoming simpler and simpler, until finally the w^orld
of life would present nothing but that undifferentiated
protoplasmic matter wliicli, so far as our present knowl-
edo-e ffoes, is the common foundation of all vital ac-
tivity."
" The hypothesis of evolution supposes that in all this
vast progression there would be no breach of continuity,
no point at which we could say, ' This is a natural proc-
ess,' and, ' This is not a natural process,' but that the
whole might be compared to that wonderful process of
development which may be seen going on every day
under our eyes, in virtue of which there arises, out of
90 NATURE AXD REVELATION.
the semifluid, comparatively liomogeneons substance
which we call an egg^ the complicated organization of
one of the higher animals. This, in a few words, is
what is meant by the hypothesis of evolution ;" and in
the same lecture he writes : '' We have come to look
upon the present as the child of the past and as the parent
of the future ; and as we have excluded chance from a
place in the universe, so we ignore, even as a possibility,
the notion of any interference with the order of nature."
{'' New York Lectures on Evolution," Lecture L)
This, if it be not formal atheism, is virtual atheism ;
and such Professor Clitford, of England, who had adopted
evolution in this form, found it ; and on his dying-bed
gave utterance to '' the inexpressibly mournful thoughts
— " It cannot be doubted that the theistic idea is a com-
fort and a solace to those who hold it, and that the loss
of it is a very painful loss. It cannot be doubted, at
least by many of us in this generation, who have
received it in our childhood, and have parted from it
since with such searching trouble as only cradle-faiths
can cause. We have seen the spring sun shine out of
an empty heaven to light up a soulless earth ; we have
felt with utter loneliness that the Great Companion is
dead." {Christian Tliougid^ vol. 1, p. 86.)
§ 35. llelation of lievelation to Evolution as taiigJit hy
Charles Darwin.
Respecting the hypothesis of evolution as taught hy
Charles Darwin^ heginning loith certain prvmordiaX
limng foynns^ and including man in its range, 1 re-
mark :
1. It is plainly irreconcilable vritli the Bible account
of the origin of man — " And God said, Let us make
man in our own image, after our likeness ; and let them
EVOLUTIOISr. 91
have dominion over tlie lisli of tlic sea, and over tlie fowl
of the air, and over the cattle, and overall the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the eartli.
So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God created He him ; male and female created He them. "
(Gen. 1 : 26, 27.) " And the Lord God formed man of
the dnst of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and man became a living soul. . . . And
the Lord God cansed a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept ; and He took one of his ribs, and closed np
the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord
God had taken from man, made He a woman, and
brought her unto the man." (Gen. 2 : 7, 21, 22.)
Compare this with the account of the origin of man
given by Darwin (quoted in § 28), and I think the reader
will admit that by no fair interpretation can these two
accounts be made to harmonize one with the other.
2. And Darwin does not help the case wdien he writes :
*' When I view all beings not as special creations, but as
the lineal descendants of some few beings who lived long
before the tirst bed of the Silurian system was deposited,
they seem to me to become ennobled." (" Origin of
Species," p. 43G.) It is not length of ancestry alone
which ennobles, but cliaracter as well. And of such a
genealogy as that which Darwin claims for himself —a
genealogy which reads : man which was the son of a long-
tailed, sharp- eared monkey, wdn'ch was the son of an
opossum, which was the son of a lizard, which was the
son of a fish, which was the son of a sea-quirt— I cannot
but think the more a man has of it, the worse off will
lie be.
3. Darwin speaks of evolution as simjDly ^' a mode of
creation, ^^ and so cannot be charged w^ith formal athe-
ism. And yet he teaches that evolution is effected
92 NATURE AND IIEVELATION.
tlirough ^' natural selection ;" and in explaining this
phrase, he writes : '' It is difficult to avoid personifying
nature ; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action
and product of many natural laws ; and by laws, the
sequence of events as ascertained by us." (" Origin of
Species," cli. 4.) After reading this, one will not be
surprised at the statement made recently by the Duke of
Argyll, in a public lecture in Glasgow : "In the last year
of his life Mr. Darwin did me the honor of calling upon
me in London, and I had a long and interesting conversa-
tion with that distinguished observer of nature. In the
course of conversation I said it was impossible to look
at the wonderful processes of nature which he had
observed without seeing that they were the effect and
expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's
answer. He looked at me hard and said : ^ Well, it often
comes over me with overpowering force, but at other
times (and he shook his head) it seems to go away.'"
{Philadeljjhia Presbyterian^ May 16th, 1885.)^^
" The faith expressed by these chief representatives
of evolution" (Huxley, Haeckel and Spencer) "is
evidently, if faith at all, faith at its minimum, even in
* The following letter was written by Darwin, a sliort time before
his death, to a student at Jena, in whose mind the study of Darwin's
book had raised religious difficulties, and who wrote to him on the
subject :
" SiE : I am very busy, and am an old man in delicate health, and
have not time to answer your questions fully, even assuming that
they are capable of being answered at all. Science and Christ have
nothing to do with each other, excejjt in as far as the habit of scien-
tific investigation makes a man cautious about accepting any proof.
As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that any revelation has ever
been made. With regard to a future life, every one must draw his
own conclusions from vague and contradictory probabilities. Wish-
ing you well, I remain your obedient servant, Charles Darwin."
{Christian Thoiujld, vol. 1, p. 100.)
EVOLUTION". 93
Darwin. Between his God of half an eternity ago,
who woke just long enough to breathe life into a few
material forms or only one, and then fell once more into
a slumber so deep that it has not been broken since, and
the no-God of Haeckel, and the mysterious It of
Spencer, there would really seem to be not much to
choose. Himself the moving principle of the universe
He first framed, is, we suppose, a true conception ; but
this is not, logically and necessarily not, the Creator of
the evolutionists. According to them, the universe is
essentially automatic and godless. For infinite years the
Darwin divinity has given no sign of his existence, is
practically non-existent, has ceased to be contemporary ;
if not dead, is as good as dead. ' The Great Companion '
is not, and we are left alone." (Dr. Coles, in Christian
Thought, vol. 2, p. 428.)
§ 36. Revelation and Evolution as Taught ly Di\
Woodrow.
Br. Woodrow has recently advanced a modified hy-
2?othesis of evolution as it applies to man, attributing
the origin of 7nan^s body to evolution, %ohile his soul is
the product of immediate creation. His own words are :
"' There would seem to be no ground for attributing a
different origin to man's body from that which should
be attributed to animals ; if the existing animal species
were immediately created, so was man ; if they were
derived from ancestors unlike themselves, so may he
have been. ... As regards the soul of man, wdiich
bears God's image, and which differs so entirely not
merely in degree but in kind from anytliing in the
animals, I believe that it was immediately created, that
we are here so taught ; and 1 have not found in science
any reason to believe otherwise. Just as t)^ere is no
94 NATURE AND REVELATION.
scientific basis for the belief that the doctrine of deriva-
tion by descent can bridge over the chasms which sepa-
rate the non-existent from the existent, and the inorganic
from the organic, so there is no such basis for the belief
that this doctrine can bridge over the chasm which sep-
arates the mere animal from the exalted being which is
made in the image of God. The mineral differs from the
animal in kind, not merely in degree ; so the animal dif-
fers from man in kind ; and while science has traced
numberless transitions from degree to degree, it has
utterly failed to find any indications of transition from
kind to kind in this sense. So in the circumstantial ac-
count of the creation of the first woman, there are what
seem to me insurmountable obstacles in the way of fully
applying the doctrine of descent." {Southern Presby-
terian Bevieio, ISSl, p. 356.) And subsequently he
adds : '' The more fully I become acquainted with the
facts of which 1 have given a faint outline, the more 1
am inclined to believe that it pleased God, the Almighty
Creator, to create present and intermediate organic forms,
not immediately but mediately, in accordance with the
general plan involved in the liypothesis" {i.e.^ evolution)
*^ I have been illustrating." {Southern Presbyterian
Pevieio^ p. 306.)
Eespecting the hypothesis of evolution in this form, 1
remark :
1. It is unscientific in that it attributes the origin of
woman, body and soul, to immediate creation, while
man's body is the product of evolution. In the view of
every naturalist, woman is half the species homo — is
half the man ; and to state the hypothesis in the lan-
guage of science, it should read : One half the body of
man is the product of evolution, while the other half,
with all the soul, is the product of immediate creation.
EVOLUTION. 95
Sucli an origin as this, for any species of living beings, is
without precedent, even in the vrildest sj^ecuktions of
scientists.
2. It is, I thinh, irreconcilable with the account of
man's creation given in Scripture. " And the Lord God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living
soul. " (Gen. 2:7.) The phrase here rendered " a living
soul," literally rendered is " an animal of life" — i.e., a
living animal. Jamieson, in his commentary on this
verse, writes : "At its lirst formation the body of man,
so exquisitely organized, was no more than a mass of
inert nuitter, till the Lord Giod endowed it with vitality,
and ' breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ' — liter-
ally, lives ; but though in the plural form, it is commonly
rendered, life, the natural or organic life, as the phrase
usually denotes, ' and man became a living soul ' — liter-
ally, an animal of life (see v. 19, ch. 1, 20, 24, 30 ;
10 ! 12, 15, 16, where the word is used in this sense) ; and
hence Bishop Warburton paraphrases the passage before
us in the following manner : ' He breathed into this
statue the breath of life, and the lump of clay became a
living creature.' " Dr. McCosh writes : '' There are two
accounts of the creation of man : one in Gen, 1 : 26.
There is counsel and decision : ' Let us make man in
our own image.' This applies to his soul or higher
nature. The other account is in Gen. 2:7:' And the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man
became a living soul.' This is man's organic body."
(McCosh on Development, p. 35.)
What is affirmed in Gen, 2 : 7 is (1) that God made
the inanimate body of man of the dust of the grwind ;
and then (2) by a special act imparted animal life to
96 IfATURE AXD REVELATION".
tliat inanimate body. The product of evolution, from
the veiy nature of the process, " descent with modifica-
tion," is a liv^ing thing, possessed at the least of animal
life. It may die very early, but at its beginning it must
be a living thing. With this passage before us, we have
the alternative, either (1) the body God formed w\as
an inanimate bod}^ and to this Re imparted animal life,
which accords well vrith Scripture ; but there is no
evolution possible here; the body is lifeless, '^a lump
of clay," and life has to be imparted by a special act of
God ; or (2) the body God formed was possessed of
animal life, to which lie afterward imparted an immortal
soul, which accords with the doctrine of evolution, but
is irreconcilable with the Scriptures, rightly interpreted.
§ 37. Revelation and Evolution in its most Limited
Range.
The hypothesis of evolution^ talcing it in its most
limited 7'ange, as excluding inorganic nature on the one
hand, and so recognizing the fact that a great gulf
separates between the non-living and the living ; and
excluding also man, on the other hand, and so recogniz-
ing the fact that an impassable gulf separates the brutes
from immortal man, '^ made in the image of God," and
understanding it as simply "a mode of creation," can-
not be considered atheistic. Nor is it irreconcilable, as
I think, with the Bible account of the origin of plants
and animals in the world. The unfavorable reception
which it has met at the hands of Christian men generally
is owing, if I mistake not, like that of poor Tray in the
old fable, not so much to what it is in itself, as to the
company in which they found it.
Experience would seem to prove that the tendency of
evolution, in the minds of those who adopt it, is to foster
EVOLUTION. 97
tlie conception of onr world as "an automatic machine,"
running itself ; and of God as a being afar olf — a concep-
tion in striking contrast with that conveyed by the Script-
ures — " Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not,
neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet your
Heavenly Father feedeth them." (Matt. 6 : 26.) " Are
not two sparrows sold for a farthing ? and one of them
shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But
the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Matt.
10 : 29, 30.) " In him we live, and move, and have our
being." (Acts IT : 28.) It certainly seems to have had
this effect on the mind of Darwin, as is evident from his
words addressed to the Duke of Argyll, quoted in § 35.
TV.
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY.
§ 38. A Remarkable Fad.
'^ History has embalmed for ns," writes Professor
Huxley, ''the speculations upon the origin of hving
beings, which were among the earliest products of the
dawning intellectual activity of man. In those early
days positive knowledge was not to be had, but the crav-
ino-s after it needed, at all hazards, to be satisfied, and
according to the country, or the turn of thought of the
speculator, the suggestion that all living things arose from
the mud of the Nile, from a primeval Qgg, or from some
more anthropomorphic agency, afforded a sufficient rest-
ing-place for his curiosity. The myths of paganism are
as dead as Osiris or Zeus, and the man who should revive
them, in opposition to the knowledge of our time, would
justly be laughed to scorn ; but the coeval imaginations
current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded
by writers whose very name and age are admitted by
every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet
shared their fate, but even at this day are regarded by
nine tenths of the civilized world as the authoritative
standard of fact and the criterion of the justice of scien-
tific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of things,
and, among them, of species. In this nineteenth century,
as at the dawn of modern physical science, the cos-
mogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 99
the pliilosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox. "
(Huxley's " Lay Sermons," pp. 277, 278.)
When Professor Huxley states that the book of
Genesis — the book which contains " the cosmogony of
the semi-barbarous Hebrews" — as he calls them — '^'is
the work of a writer whose very name and age are ad-
mitted to be unknown," he is stepping out of his own
department of natural science, in which he deservedly
ranks high as a teacher, into that of historical and literary
criticism, of which, 1 doubt not, he would himself con-
fess that he knows but little."^ So far is this statement
from being true, that I hesitate not to affirm that to-day
nine tenths of the scholars of Great Britain and America
regard the authenticity and genuineness of the book of
Genesis as better established than that of any other book
that has come down to us from antiquity.
On the other point which his statement covers — viz. :
the estimate in which the Mosaic cosmogony is held, to-
day, throughout the civilized world, falling as it does
within the department of natural science, there is no one
more competent to express an opinion than he. And his
statement, that while ''the myths of paganism are as
dead as Osiris or Zeus, and that the man who would re-
vive them in opposition to the knowledge of our time
would be justly laughed to scorn," the Mosaic cosmog-
ony " has not shared their fate, but even at this day
* " We ai'e now assured, upon the authority of the highest critics,
and even of dignitaries of the church, that there is no evidence that
Moses wrote the book of Genesis, or knew anything about it. You
will understand that I give no judgment— i^ would be an impertinence
upon my pari to volunteer even a suggestion upon such a siOject. But
that being the state of opinion among scholars and the clergy, it is
well for the unlearned iu Hebrew lore, and for the laitj', to avoid en-
tangling themselves in such vexed questions." — Huxley's " i\eto York
Lectures on Evolution," Lecture L
100 NATURE AND REVELATION".
is regarded by nine tentlis of the civilized world as the
authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the
justice of scientific conclusions, in all that relates to the
origin of things," may well challenge our careful consid-
eration. If this be true — and we believe that it is true
— it is a very remarkable fact in the history of human
thought and opinion ; and it becomes us, in the spirit of
a sound philosophy, to ask, and to answer, if we can,
the question. Why is it, that while the cosmological
speculations of the Egyptians and the Greeks, the two
foremost nations of antiquity, have come to be univer-
sally regarded as myths, ''the cosmogony of the semi-
barbarous Hebrews," in the light of this our nineteenth
century, controls the thoughts and opinions of nine tenths
of the civilized world ? History has a philosophy as well
as nature ; and for so remarkable a fact as this there
must be some reason ; and it becomes us, in entering
upon an examination of the Mosaic cosmogony, to ascer-
tain, if possible, what that reason is.
The strange vitality — strange in the estimation of
Professor Huxley — of the Mosaic cosmogony is owing, if
I mistake not, (1) in part, to its intimate connection
with the religion of the Hebrews — a religion which, with
variations in non-essentials only, has lived from the very
beginning of human history down to the present day,
and which, in its Christian form, is the religion of the
nations which now dominate the world. Worshippers
have long since disappeared from the temples of Osiris
and Zeus, while those of the God whom Moses served,
and in advocacy of whose worship Genesis was written,
are now more thronged, and that by the leaders of the
world s civilization, than at any time in the past history
of our race. Not only does Moses' cosmogony form a
part of the book in which this religion is taught, but it
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 101
stands related to this religion, as setting forth a reason
why the religion assumes the particular form which it
does, of a worship of Jehovah. The cosmogony com-
mences with the declaration, '' In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth," on which Bishop Pat-
rick remarks : " Designing to hang the whole frame of his
polity upon piety toward God, and to make the Creator
of all the founder of his laws, he begins with Ilim. Kot
after the manner of the Egyptians and Phoenicians, who
bestowed this adorable name upon a great multitude ; but
he puts in the front of his work the name of the sole
cause of all things, the Maker of whatsoever is seen or
unseen ; . . . . whom therefore he would have them
look upon, not only as the enactor of their laws, but of
those also which all nature obeys." (Patrick's '' Com-
mentary," ill loc.) Hence it cornes that Moses' cos-
mogony has always been regarded as something more
than a mere cosmogony — as part and parcel of the religion
which he taught, to endure as long as that religion en-
dures, to be reverently believed wherever that religion
prevails.
(2) A second reason for the vitality of the Mosaic cos-
mogony is to be found in the nature of the cosmogony
itself. Tlie origin of all living things in the mud of the
Nile, as was believed among the Egjq^tians, or in a prim-
itive Qgg, according to Greek mythology, could satisfy
the human mind in a condition of childhood only. The
creation of all things by an Almighty God is a doctrine
which meets every demand of the profoundest philoso-
phy, and may well satisfy man in his maturity.
§ 39. ^'Li the Beginning,'^ according to Hoses,
The Mosaic cosmogony, contained in the first and
second chapters of Genesis, commences with the declara-
102 NATURE AND REVELATION.
tion, '^ In the heginning God created the heaven and
the earthy
" In the heginning'^'' — i.e.^ in tlie beginning or at the
outset of the work of creation here recorded. John in
his gospel, doubtless referring to this language of Moses,
and intending to teach the eternal existence of the Word,
writes: ^^ In the beginning i(;<^^ the Word" — i.e.^ the
Word existed. In using this phrase the design of JVJoses
seems to have been to carry back the mind of the reader
to a period at which '' the heaven and the earth" began
their existence ; and he does this in order to convey,
upon the highest authority, the assurance that they had
both a beginning and creator ; that they did not spring
into being by chance, nor, as some of the ancient philoso-
phers taught, exist from eternity.
*' God created^ The word here rendered ^' created"
does not necessarily mean to make out of nothing ; in-
deed, in so far as 1 know, there is no word in any lan-
guage which has invariably such a meaning ; but ''' that a
production entirely new, a really creative act, is related in
this verse, and not merely a renovation or reconstruction
of old and previously existing materials is evident, not
only from the whole subsequent context, but from the
summary of the processes described in the subsequent
narrative, where a different word is used, denoting
* made,' ' reconstructed,' ' arranged.' (Ch. 2 : 8, with
Ex. 20 : 11.) The first term signifies to bring into
being ; the other points only to a new collocation of mat-
ter already in existence. . . . On these grounds we
are warranted in considering the sacred historian to have
selected the terms he has employed for the special pur-
pose of intimating an actual creation out of nothing."
(Jamieson's '^ Commentary," in loo.)
' ' The heaven and the earth, " There is no single word
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 103
in tlie Hebrew language corresponding to our English
wov^ universe. Tlie phrase " the heaven and the earth"
is the nearest equivalent to it, and is here doubtless used
to signify the whole system of which our earth forms a
part : the sun, the planets with tlieir satellites, and the
fixed stars, with all that belong to them. So Moses
understood the expression, for he afterward wrote :
*' The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is." (Ex. 20 : 11.) The Jewish commentators
interpret it as denoting '* the heavens with all tliey con-
tain, and the earth with all that belongs to it." Tlieo-
philus, one of the early Christian Fathers, writes : '' The
heavens are mentioned before the earth, to show that
God's works are not like ours ; for He begins at the top,
we at the bottom — that is. He first made the fixed stars
and all that belonged to them (so I take the word heaven
here to signify), for they had a beginning, as well as this
lower world, though they do not seem to be compre-
hended in the six days' work, which relates only to this
planetary world, as 1 may call it, which hath the sun for
its centre."
§ 40. ^^In the Beginning ^"^"^ according to Science.
In this opening portion of the Mosaic cosmogony there
are two important truths taught us — viz.: (1) ^' the
heaven and the earth," the universe, has not existed from
eternity, but had a beginning ; and (2) the universe in
its beginning was not the work of chance, but a creation
of God. On both these points science, in so far as it is
able to speak at all, confirms the cosmogony.
1. The universe had a heginning. Geology, basing
its conclusions upon observed facts, traces back the. his-
tory of our earth from the condition in which it now is
through a succession of changes, to be beginnings of life
104 NATURE AJs'D RETELATIOl!^.
in tlie world ; and then, in tlie liglit of very probable
conjecture, through an earlier series of changes, back to
what must be regarded as the beginning of the universe
itself. About the time occupied in all these changes
there is room for great difference of opinion ; and so no
cautious geologist has attempted to fix that time as
measured by years ; but about the changes themselves
having a beginning there is no difference of opinion, and
no room for difference.
The '' new astronomy," as it is popularly called — the
astronomy which deals especially with the physical
nature and structure of the heavenly bodies as they are
made known to us by the spectroscope and improved
telescope — testifies to the same effect, that the sun and
planets have all had a beginning. It even ventures to
attempt to fix the date of the sun*s beginning. ^'We
may say," writes Professor Langley, '' with something
like awe at the meaning to which science points, that
the whole past of the sun cannot have been over eighteen
million years ; and its whole future radiation cannot
last so much more. Its probable life is covered by
about thirty million years. E'o reasonable allowance for
the fall of meteors, or for all orther known causes of sup-
ply, could possibly raise the whole term of its existence
to sixty million years. This is substantially Professor
Young's view." (Professor Langley, in the Century for
December, 1884.)
2. The tmiverse is not the work of chance^ hnt a crea-
tion of God. Astronomy testifies to a wonderful order
pervading the universe, mathematical in its accuracy, in
so far as the bodies astronomy has to deal with are con-
cerned ; zoology and botany testify to an equally won-
derful order prevailing throughout the kingdom of or-
ganic nature — a wonderful adaptation of living creatures
THE MOSAIC COSMOGO]S'Y. 105
to their environments, and of tlie parts and organs of
these living creatures to their functions, which are
utterly inconsistent with the idea of their being the prod-
uct of chance. Instead of countenancing the old hy-
pothesis of ^^ the fortuitous concourse of atoms," some
ardent scientists manifest a disposition to run to the
other extreme. Thus, Professor Huxley writes : '^ The
conception of the constancy of the order of nature has
become the dominant idea of modern thought. To per-
sons familiar with the facts upon wdiich that conception
is based, and competent to estimate their significance, it
has ceased to be conceivable that chance should have any
place in the universe, or that events should depend upon
any but the natural sequence of cause and effect. We
have come to look upon the present as the child of the
past and as the parent of the future ; and as we have
excluded chance from a place in the universe, so we
ignore, even as a possibility, the notion of any interfer-
ence with the order of nature." (Huxley's " New York
Lectures on Evolution," Lecture I.) Avoiding this ex-
treme, the thoughtful scientist of to-day may exclaim,
with far deeper feeling than that of David : '' 1 am fear-
fully and wonderfully made : marvellous are thy works ;
and that my soul knoweth right well." (Ps. 139 : 14.)
§ 41. Emergence from Chaos^ according to Moses.
Moses continues his cosmogony with the record, ' ' And
the earth was without form, and void {was waste and
void, jN^ew Version) ; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon {was
hrooding upon, New Version, margin) the face of the
waters. And God said. Let there be light, and there
was light. And God saw the light, that it was good :
and God divided the light from the darkness. And God
106 NATURE AND REVELATION.
called the light Day, and the darkness He called ]N"ight.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
{And there was evening and there ivas morning, one
day, New Version.) And God said, Let there be a
firmament {expanse, New Version, margin) in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which w^ere under the firmament from the waters
wdiich were above the firmament : and it was so. And
God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening
and the morning were the second day. {And there
was evening and there was morning, a second day, New
Version.) And God said. Let the waters under the
heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the
dry land appear. . . . And God said, Let there be
lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day
from the night ; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years : and let them be for
lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth : and it was so. And God made two great
lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
liffht to rule the nidit : He made the stars also. And
God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and
over the night, and to divide the light from the dark-
ness : and God saw that it w^as good. And the evening
and the morning were the fourth day." {And there was
evening and there was morning, a fourth day. New
Version.) (Gen. 1 : 2-9, 14-19.)'
On the expression in verse 2, '' And the spirit of
God moved xijpon the face of the waters," Jamieson re-
marks : '' Our English version, in its use of the word
moved, does not give the meaning correctly ; for the
word in the original does not convey the idea of pro-
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 107
gressive motion, but that of brooding over — cherishing — ■
the act of incubation which a fowl performs when hatch-
ing its eggs, and the particular form of the verb implies
a continuance of this action. It was not the self-develop-
ment of powers inherent in matter. The creative move-
ment was made by the will of God ; and as if to refute
the doctrine of Pantheism, it is expressly stated that the
action was not in but iijpon the face of the waters.**'
(Jamieson's "" Commentary," in loc.)
On the expression in verse 3, " Let there be light,"
Jamieson remarks : " It is deserving of particular notice
that the substantive verb is used here, and not either the
words * create ' or ' made.' It was the manifestation of
what had been previously in existence — Let light be, or,
rather. Light shall be, not the formation of an ele-
ment, or matter, which had no being at all till the divine
command was issued. . . . Where all had been in-
volved in darkness, there was an alternation of light ;
and as unbroken gloom had reigned previous to this
happy change, so, in describing the physical arrange-
ment that was now established, this natural sequence is
preserved, and the evening is reckoned before the morn-
ing." (Jamieson's '^ Commentary," in loo.)
§ 42. Emergence from Chaos ^ according to Science.
This record of Genesis is evidently written in the lan-
guage of common life, as contradistinguished from the
more exact language of science ; it speaks of things as
they appear, and not necessarily as they really are. (See
In the portion of the Mosaic cosmogony now before
us there are two important truths — important as parts
of a cosmogony — stated, in both of which science con-
lirms the statement of Moses — viz. : (1) The earliest con-
108 NATURE AND REVELATION.
dition of our earth was that commonly spoken of as a
chaos, from which the present cosmos has gradually
emerged ; and (2) the existence of light before the sun
ajDpeared.
1. That the original condition of our earth was that
of a chaos, all geologists are agreed. That the earth
was once a confused mass of air and earth and water,
destitute of life, and incapable of supporting it, even in
its lowest forms — a condition aptly described by the
words " waste and void " and with '' darkness upon the
face of the deep," is one of the settled conclusions of
the science of our day. That from this chaotic con-
dition of the earth our cosmos — i.e., our earth in all its
beautiful order — has gradually emerged, is a conclusion
equally well settled. The very term cosmogony — ^.^.,
the generation of the cosmos, implies this. '' That the
present is the child of the past," is as true of the earth
itself as of each of the nations inhabiting its surface.
The general order of this emergence, as Moses describes
it, is that adopted by all geologists as the result of their
study of nature — viz. : the separation of the waters thence-
forth to be suspended in the atmosphere from those that
are to remain upon the surface of the earth, followed
by a separation of the waters upon the earth's surface,
and the gathering together of them into seas, that the dry
land might ap})ear ; and then, and not till then, the
setting of the sun in the heavens to rule over the day.
2. The existence of light before the sun appeared.
This is a very remarkable statement, especially if we
regard it as the statement of " a semi-barbarous Hebrew,' '
made amid '^ the dawning intellectual activity of man."
Nothing like it is to be found among the cosmological
speculations of the ancient Egyptians or Greeks ; and
less than a century ago it was urged as an objection to
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 109
the Mosaic cosmogony, that it taught a doctrine at vari-
ance with the established order of nature— viz.: the
existence of hght before the sun — the one great source
of all natural light.
Now, many geologists, adopting an hypothesis orig-
inally proposed by Lamarck, tell us that our whole solar
system once existed as a nebulous mass of widely dif-
fused luminous '' star-dust," from which our sun, with
all its attendant planetary bodies, have been evolved in
the course of ages ; so that light must have existed long
before the heat with which it is correlated in nature
would suffer any portion of the nebulous mass to con-
dense into a comparatively solid body like the sun.
Whether we adopt this hypothesis or not, all geolo-
gists agree that there must have been a period in the
early history of our earth — its period of chaotic exist-
ence, when light from the sun could not have reached
its surface, but '' darkness must have been upon the face
of the deep ;" and that this was followed by a second
period — the period occupied in the separation of " the
waters which were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the firmament," and the subsequent
*' gathering together the waters under the heavens into
one place, so that the dryland might appear," during
which light from the sun could reach the earth's surface
in the form of diffused daylight only. Not until these
changes were complete could the sun and moon appear,
and begin to "be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and years." It is true that the teachings of geol-
ogy on this point can as yet, on scientific grounds
alone, be considered as nothing better than very prob-
able theory ; yet it is theory so probable as to command
the universal assent of geologists. And so we but state
a fact when we say that modern science, in so far as
110 NATURE Al!fD REVELATION.
science has anything to say in the case, confirms the cos-
mogony of Moses on a point at which it was once thought
to be at variance with the established order of nature.
§ 43. The Creation of Plants and Animals^ according
to Moses.
Moses' account of the origin of living, organized
beings, plants, and animals is in the following words—
viz.: *'And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit
after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and
it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb
yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in itself, after his kind ; and God saw
that it was good. And the evening and the morning
were the third day. {And there was evening and there
was morning^ a third day, New Version.) . . .
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life {swarm with swarms of
livijig creatures, New Version, margin) and fowl that
may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales {the great sea-7no7isters,
New Version) and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind : and God
saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
and let fowl multiply in the earth. • And the evening
and the morning were the fifth day. {A?id there was
evening and there was morning, a fifth day. New
Version.) And God said. Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing,
and beast of the earth after his kind : and it was so. And
God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. Ill
after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Gen. 1 : 11-13, 20-25.)
This account of the creation of plants and animals is
worthy our attention in the following particulars — viz. :
(1) It is a creation out of pre-existing materials, and not,
like that of the universe, out of nothing ; (2) the origin
of life, like the origin of matter, is traced directly to God
himself ; (3) that special provision is made that each
several kind of plant and animal shall continue its kind
by natural generation ; (1) that plants and animals are
brought into being not singly, nor in pairs, but in great
numbers ; and (5) that this creation is said to have been
effected in a certain order. What is the testimony of
science on these several points ?
§ 41. The Creation of Plants and Animals^ according
to Science.
1. As to the creation of ^plants and animals out of
"pre-existing materials. Chemistry declares that plants
and animals to-day derive all their materials from the
inorganic world. Different as the proximate elements
of organic nature, such as lignine, sugar, gelatine, are
from those of inorganic nature, its ultimate elements,
such as oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, are the same ; and im-
possible as it may be for the chemist to form these
proximate elements out of such materials in his labora-
tory, we know that they are continually being thus
formed in the organisms of living plants and animals,
under the operation of that mysterious something we call
life.
2. The doctrine of the spontaneous generation of Ufe,
once earnestly defended hy iniany scientists^ is 7iow
universally abandoned. On this subject Professor
112 NATURE AND REVELATION".
Drummond writes : '^ What essentially is involved in say-
ing that there is no spontaneous generation of life ? It
is meant that the passage from the mineral world to the
plant or animal world is hermetically sealed on the
mineral side. This inorganic world is staked off from
the living world by barriers which have never yet been
crossed from within, ^o change of substance, no modi-
fication of environments, no chemistry, no electricity,
nor any form of energy, nor any evolution, can endow
any single atom of the mineral world with the attribute
of life. Only by the bending down into the dead world
of some living form can these dead atoms be gifted with
the properties of vitality ; without this prehminary con-
tact with life they remain fixed in the inorganic sphere
forever. It is a very mysterious law wdiich guards in
this way the portals of the living world. And if there
is one thing in nature more worthy of pondering for its
strangeness than another, it is the spectacle of this vast
helpless world of the dead, cut off from the Hving by the
law of biogenesis, and denied forever the possibility of
resurrection within itself. So very strange a thing, in-
deed, is this broad line in nature, that science has long
and urgently sought to obliterate it. Biogenesis stands
in tlie way of some forms of evolution with such stern
persistence that the assaults upon this law for number
and thoroughness have been unparalleled. But as we
have said, it has stood the test. Nature, to the modern
eye, stands broken in two. The physical laws may ex-
plain the inorganic world ; the biological law may account
for the development of the organic ; but of the point
where they meet, of the strange border-land between the
dead and the living, science is silent. It is as if God had
placed everything in eartli and heaven in the hands of
nature, but had reserved a point at the genesis of life
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 113
for His direct appearing." (''Natural Law in the
Spiritual World," pp. 68, 69.) See § 27.
3. According to Hoses, at their creation special
provision was made that each several hind of plant and
animal shoidd continue its kind hy natural generation.
On this point science, long at variance with the Mosaic
cosmogony, is now in harmony therewith. Professor
Huxley writes : " As regards the second problem offered
to us hy Redi, whether xenogenesis obtains side by side
with homogenesis, whether, that is, there exists not only
the ordinary living things giving rise to offspring which
run through the same cycle as themselves, but also others,
producing offspring which are of a totally different
character from themselves, the reseaches of two centu-
ries have led to a different result. That the grubs found
in galls are no product of the plants upon which the galls
grow, but are the result of the introduction of the eggs
of insects into the substance of the plants, was made out
by Yallisnieri, Raumer, and others before the end of
the first half of the eighteenth century. The tape-worms,
bladder- worms, and flukes continued to be a stronghold
of the advocates of xenogenesis for a much longer
period. Indeed, it is only within the last thirty years
that the splendid patience of Yon Siebold and other
helminthologists has succeeded in tracing every such
parasite, often through the strangest wanderings and
metamorphoses, to an ^^^ derived from a parent actually
or potentially like itself ; and the tendency of inquiries
elsewhere has all been in the same direction." (" Lay
Sermons," p. 367.)
Subsequently speaking of the pebrine — i.e., the disease
which attacked the silk-worm, and for a time threatened
the destruction of the silk culture in France a few years
ago, he writes; "Such being the facts respecting the
114 KATURE AND REVELATION.
pebrine, what are the indications as to the method of pre-
venting it ? It is obvious that this depends upon the
way in which the panhistophyton" — the parasite which
causes the pebrine— "is generated. If it may be gen-
erated by abiogenesis or by xenogenesis within the silk-
worm or its moth, the extirpation of the disease must
depend upon the prevention of the occurrence of the
conditions under which this generation takes place. But
if, on the other hand, the panhistophyton is an indepen-
dent organism, vrhich is no more generated by the silk-
worm than the mistletoe is generated by the oak or ap-
ple-tree on which it grows, though it may need the silk-
worm for its development in the same way as the mistle-
toe needs the tree, then the indications are totally differ-
ent. The sole thing to be done is, to get rid of and keep
away the germs of the panhistophyton. As might be
imagined from the course of his previous investigations,
M. Pasteur was led to believe that the latter was the right
theory ; and gaided by that theory, he devised a method
of extirpating the disease which has proved to be com-
pletely successful wherever it has been properly carried
out." ("Lay Sermons," p. 375.) In the case of the
higher forms of plant and animal life, that the offspring
was the product of a parent like itself has been long
known and universally admitted. That this same law
obtains among the lower orders, even the lowest, science
has now demonstrated.
4. According to Moses, 'plants and animals, with the
exception of man, were not hrought into heing as single
indvciduals, or as pairs at the most, but when God
spake He said : " Let the waters swarm with swarms of
livino: creatures." The result of such a work of creation
was at once to people the air, the earth, and seas with
many individuals or pairs of every species intended to
THE MOSAIC COSMOGOITY. 115
inhabit tliem. To such a creation as this the fossiliferous
rocks testify. Not at one point on the earth's surface
only does a particular species appear, but at many points
at the same time, and these points far distant from each
other. The wide distribution of certain species possess-
ing httle or no power of locomotion — e.g.^ the oyster, at
the present day, furnishes a serious difficulty in the way
of the evolutionist (§ 30). And when we go back and
find this wide distribution existing from the beginning,
the difficulty becomes almost insurmountable.
5. The Mosaic cosmogony presents us with a certain
order of creation — viz.: (1) " Grass, herbs, and trees" —
i.e.^ the vegetable kingdom, and this before the sun,
moon, and stars were '^ set in the firmament of heaven
to give hght upon the earth ;" (2) fishes, including all
the numerous inhabitants of the waters, together with
^' great sea-monsters," and ^' birds," or flying creatures,
including insects ; (3) '' cattle, and creeping things, and
beasts of the earth."
Plants alone are capable of feeding directly upon inor-
ganic matter. Animals, although the ultimate composi-
tion of their food is the same with that of plants, are
incapable of digesting that food until it has under-
gone the preliminary organization which it acquires in
assuming a vegetable form. On this point Professor
Guyot writes : " The most important function of the
plant in the economy of nature is, with the aid of the
sun's light, to turn inorganic into organic matter, and
thus prepare food for the anim^al. Nothing else in nature
does this important work. The animal cannot do it,
and starves in the midst of an abundance of the materials
needed for the building up of its body. . . . The
plant, therefore, is the indispensable basis of all animal
life ; for though animals partially feed upon each other,
y
116 NATURE AXD REVELATION.
ultimately tlie organic matter they need mnst come from
the plant." (" Creation," pp. 88, 89.) The Paleozoic
Ao-e, when the crust of the earth was so much warmer
than it now is that the climate of Arctic regions was tropi-
cal, and when the atmosphere was heavily laden w^ith
w^atery vapor and carbonic acid, was the age of a gigantic
ves-etation, the remains of which constitute onr older
coal-fields, some of them of great thickness and of vast
extent. That the waters were swarming with inhabitants
before what we know as land-animals appeared, and,
further, that great sea-monsters and other amphibious
animals preceded "cattle and beasts of the earth,"
geology testifies w^ith equal distinctness. Thus it will be
seen that science testifies not only to an order of crea-
tion, but to an order, iii its general outline, the same
with that given by Moses.
When Professor Huxley v/rites : " The oldest fossils in
the Silurian rocks are exuvia of marine animals ; and if
the view which is entertained by Principal Dawson and
Dr. Carpenter respecting the nature of the eozoon {i.e.^
dawn-animal) be well founded, acpiatic animals existed
at a period as far antecedent to the deposition of the
coal as the coal is from us ; inasmuch as the eozoon is
met with in those Laurentian strata which lie at the
bottom of the series of stratified rocks" ('^ New York
Lectures on Evolution, "Lecture I.), and would have us
hence infer that Moses is mistaken in representing vege-
table life as antecedent to animal life ; he forgets " the
immense deposits of carbon," in the form of graphite,
'^ in the Laurentian, which would seem to bespeak a pro-
fusion of plant life in the sea or on the land, or both,
second to that of no other period that succeeded, except
that of the great coal formation." (Dawson's " Earth
and Man," p. 26.)
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 117
§ 45. The Creation of Man ^ according to Moses,
Moses' account of the creation of man is as follows — ■
viz.: '^ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life ; and man became a living soul," literally, a creat-
ure of hfe, or living creature. " And the Lord God
caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept ;
and lie took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in-
stead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had
taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her
unto the man. And Adam said. This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
(Gen. 2 : 7, 21-24.) In the first chapter of Genesis we
have this additional statement respecting the creation of
man : '^ And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness : and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creep-
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created
man in Ilis own image, in the image of God created He
him ; male and female created He them. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth." (Gen. 1 : 26-28.)
In this account of the creation of man there are four
particulars worthy our special attention — viz. : (1) He is
the last made of the inhabitants of our earth ; and wirli
his making the work of the world's creation closes ;
118 NATURE AXD EEVELATIOiq".
(2) in his creation God made but a single pair, from
whom all of human kind must have descended by natural
generation ; (3) the bodies of man and woman, though
made alike ouf of previously existing material, are made,
that of man out of '' the dost of the ground ;" that of
woman out of a rib taken from the body of man ; and
this for the purpose of furnishing a most solemn sanc-
tion to the marriage relation, and so, in the human race,
establishing the family; (4) man was made in "the
image of God," that he might have dominion over the
work of God's hands.
§ 46. The Creation of Man, according to Science.
1. Ilan is the last made of the inhabitants of earthy
and with his making the worh of creation closes. '^ And
on the seventh day God ended His worlv which He had
made ; and He rested on the seventh day from all His
work which He had made." (Gen. 2 : 2.)
On this subject the Duke of Argyll writes : " The
evidence of geology has always been that among all the
creatures which have in succession been formed to live
upon this earth, and enjoy it, man is the latest born.
This great fact is still the fundamental truth in the his-
tory of creation ; that history, as geology has revealed
it, has been a history of successive creations and of suc-
cessive destructions, old forms of life perishing and new
forms appearing, so that the whole face of nature has
been many times renewed. But until very lately it was
supposed that these vast cycles of changes had been finally
completed before man appeared. And as regards fresh
creations, this supposition is still supported by the testi-
mony of science. So far as we yet know, no new form
of life has been created since the highest form was made.
But it now appears that since that event many old forms
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 119
have died. The cycle of creation Las closed, but not the
cycle of destruction." ('^ Primeval Man," pp. 113, 114.)
2. Ill his creation of man God made hut a single
pair, from %oJiom all of hitman hind must have de-
scended hy natural generation. The unity of the
human race, thus clearly asserted by Moses, is a doctrine
which, within the last fifty years, has been assailed in
such a way as to lead to a thorough re-investigation of
the whole subject by some of the leading scientists of the
day.
Professor Cabell closes an exhaustive examination of
the whole subject with the words : '' The unity of the
human race must be considered a fundamental and an
accepted truth. Every department of knowledge has
been searched for evidence, and all respond with an
uniform testimony. The physical structure, constitution,
and habits of the race — the mode in which it is produced,
in which it exists, in which it perishes — everything that
touches its mere animal existence, demonstrates the
absolute certainty of its unity, so that no other general-
ization of physiology is more clear and more sure.
Pising one step, to the highest manifestation of man's
physical organization — ^his use of language and the power
of connected speech — the most profound survey of this
most complex and tedious part of knowledge conducts
the inquirer to no conclusion more indubitable than that
there is a common origin, a common organization, a
common nature, underlying and running through this
endless variety of a common power, peculiar to the race,
and to it alone. Thus a second science— philology —
has borne its marvellous testimony. Pising one more
step, and passing more completely to a higher region,
we find tlie rational and moral nature of men of every
age and kindred absolutely the same. Those great
120 N"ATURE AND REVELATION.
faculties by whicli man alone — and yet by which every
man — perceives that there is in things that distinction
which we call true and false, and that other distinction
which we call good and evil, upon which distinctions
and which faculties rests at last the moral and intellect-
ual destiny of the entire race, belonging to us as men,
without which Vve are not men, witli which we are the
head of the visible creation of God. So lias a third
science delivered its testimony. If we rise another step,
and survey man as he is gathered into families and tribes
and nations, with an endless variety of development, we
still behold the broad foundations of a common nature
reposing under all — the grand principles of a common
being ruling in the midst of all. So a fourth, and the
youngest of the sciences, ethnology, brings her tribute.
And now from this lofty summit survey the whole track
of at^es. In their leng-th and in their breadth scrutinize
the recorded annals of mankind. There is not one page
on which one fact is written which favors the historical
idea of a diversity of nature or origin, while the whole
scope of human story involves, assumes, and proclaims,
as the first and grandest historic truth, the absolute
imity of the race." (''Unity of Mankind," pp. 285,
286.) See also § 13.
3. The hodies of man and woman ^ though made alike
out of previously existhig material, are made — that of
nnan out of " the dust of the gi'ound f^ that of woman
out of a Tib taken from the hody of man. And this
for the purpose of furnishing a most solemn sanction to
the m^arriage relation, and so in the human race to
establish the family. On the Mosaic record of the crea-
tion of woman Bishop Patrick remarks : '' God did not
form Eve out of the ground, as He had done Adam, but
out of his side, that He might breed tlie greater love
THE MOSAIC COSMOGOiq"Y. 121
between him and lier, as parts of tlie same whole.
Whereby He also effectually recommended marriage to
all mankind, as founded in nature." And on Moses'
words, '' And brought her unto the man,' ' he adds ; " Kot
merely by conducting her to the place where Adam was ;
but the Divine Majesty, which now appeared to Eve,
presented and gave her to him to be his wife. God Him-
self made the espousals — if I may so speak — between
them, and joined them together in marriage. . . .
And by creating and joining together but one man and
one woman in the beginning, intended that mankind
should be so propagated, and not by polygamy."
(Patrick's Commentary.)
The sacredness of the marriage relation, and so of the
family, all history declares to be fundamental to progress
in civilization ; and with equal distinctness declares polyg-
amy to be fatal to national prosperity. The marriage
relation, such as Moses describes as instituted of God, is
a thing utterly unknown among savages. It is a marked
characteristic of the savage to des^^ise and degrade the
female sex. The condition of woman among them, with
rare exceptions, is no better than that of a slave or beast
of burden. Indeed, so intolerable is it, that it is not an
uncommon occurrence for female infants to be put to
death as soon as they are born, and that by the hands
of their own mothers. It is only among the most highly
civihzed nations, and as a result of that civilization, that
woman has recovered the rank and station which, accord-
ing to this account of Moses, God gave her in the begin-
ning. These facts furnish a good and sufficient reason for
God's departure from the common order of creation in
His making of woman. Certainly, the story must be
regarded as a very strange invention — if it was an inven-
tion — on the part of a '* semi-barbarous Hebrew," as
122 NATURE AND EEYELATION.
Professor Huxley would have us believe that Moses was.
In the circumstances of the case, ^^ the invention is more
incredible than the fact."
4. 31a7i loas inade in '' tlie image of Gocl^'' that he
might have dominion over the loorh of God^s hands.
A\^ithout attempting a full and particular exposition of
the phrase, '' In our image, after our likeness," 1 remark
this much, at the least, is implied therein, that man
was intended and fitted to occupy the position of " the
lord of creation ;" and to this end he was endowed
with j)owers and faculties very different from and greatly
superior to those of other creatures.
On this point Professor Huxley writes : '' There is
no one who estimates more highly than I do the dignity
of human nature and the width of the gulf in intellect-
ual and moral matters which lies between man and the
whole of the lower creation." (" Origin of Species,"
Lecture IT.)
Max Miiller writes : ^^ However much the frontiers
of the animal kingdom have been pushed forward, so
that the line of demarcation between man and the lower
animals seemed at one time to depend on a mere fold in
the brain, there is one barner which no one has yet
ventured to touch — the barrier of language. We cannot
tell as yet what language is. It may be a production of
nature, a work of human art, or a Divine gift. But to
whatever sphere it belongs, it would seem to stand
unsurpassed —nay, unequalled in it by anything else. If
it be a production of Nature, it is her last and crowning
production, which she reserved for man alone. If it be
a work of human art, it would seem to lift the human
artist almost to the level of a Divine Creator. If it be
the gift of God, it is God's greatest gift ; for throusrh it
God speaks to man, and man speaks to God in worship,
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 123
prayer, and meditation." (Max Miiller, as quoted in
Jamieson's Commentary.)
Professor Dana writes : ^^ In the appearance of man
tlie systejn of life, in progress through the ages, reached
its completion, and the animal structure its highest per-
fection. Another higher is not within the range of our
conception. For the vertebrate type, which began dur-
ing the paleozoic, in the j^rone or horizontal fish,
becomes erect in man, and thus completes, as Agassiz
has observed, the jDOSsible changes in the series to its
last term. An erect body and an erect forehead admit of
no step beyond. But besides this, man's whole structure
declares his intellectual and spiritual nature. His fore-
limbs are not organs of locomotion, as they are in all
other mammalians ; they have passed from the locomo-
tive to the cejyhalic series, being made to subserve the
purposes of the head ; and this transfer is in accordance
with a grand law in nature, which is at the basis of grade
and development. The cephalization of the animal has
been the goal in all progress ; and in man Vv^e mark its
highest possible triumj)h. Man was the first being that
was not finished on reaching adult growth, but was pro-
vided with powers for indefinite expansion, a will for a
life work, and boundless aspirations to lead to an end-
less improvement. He was the first being capable of an
intelligent survey of Nature, and comprehension of her
laws ; the first capable of augmenting his strength by
bending nature to his service, rendering thereby a weak
body stronger than all animal force ; the first capable of
deriving happiness from truth and goodness ; of appre-
hending eternal right ; of reaching toward a knowledge
of self and of God ; the first, therefore, capable of con-
scious obedience or disobedience of moral law, and the
first subject to debasement through his appetites and
124 NATURE AND REVELATION.
moral nature. There is, lience, in man a spiritual
element in whicli tlie brute has no share. His power of
indefinite progress, his thoughts and desires, that look
onward even beyond time, his recognition of spiritual
existence and of a divinity above — all evince a nattire
that partakes of the infinite and divine. Man is linked
to the jpast through the system of life^ of which he is the
last, the completing creation. But, unlike other species
of that closing system of the fast (significantly the 2010
era of geological history), he, through his spiritual
nature, is far more intimately connected w^ith the open-
ing future.^'' (Dana's '^ Geology," pp. 578, 579.)
§ 47. The Age of the 'World.
When geologists first claimed for our earth a far
greater age than the six or seven thousand years which
had long been believed to measure the interval between
its creation and the present day, the claim was generally
disallowed, on the ground of the uncertain, often vision-
ary, character of the speculations in which they habitually
indulged. But the geology of to-day is very different
from the geology of a century ago. As now pursued it
is as thoroughly Baconian in its methods, and its con-
clusions are as worthy of credit, as those of any other of
the sciences. Starting with the unquestionable truth that
our earth is all the time undergoing change in some part
or other through the operation of such agencies as river-
currents and floods, volcanoes and earthquakes, the opera-
tion of coral polyps in building up reefs, and of stone-
boring mollusks and waves in tearing them to pieces
again, and postulating the operation of these agencies in
the past substantially as in the present, the geologist seeks
to construct a physical history of the earth, to answer the
question, Ilow has the earth come to have its present
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 125
form and structure ? The legitimacy of sucli a method
as this no thoughtful person can question. And among
the most certain conclusions to which this method leads
us is the one that the age of our world is vastly greater
than six or seven thousand years.
This conclusion is Ijased npon such well-ascertained
facts as these — viz. : (1) Continents and sea-bottoms have
changed places more tlian once in ages past, as is proved
])y the occurrence of fossil corals and mollusks far up on
the mountain -sides and on the high -lands of the earth ;
and this must have occurred before man began his life
here, as it would have been impossible for that life to
have continued through such convulsions. (2) Several
different systems of organic life have, in succession,
existed upon the earth, and passed away before man was
brought into being. This is proved by the fact that these
several systems have left their fossil remains entombed in
the rock-strata, with no human remains among them.
(3) The great thickness of the fossil if erous rock-strata
in which no human remains occur — in Pennsylvania forty
thousand feet (Dana's " Geology," p. 145) — plainly
demands a long period for their deposition and their
subsequent subjection to all the changes which they have
evidently undergone.
It is true, as the Duke of Argyll remarks, that
*' chronology is of two kinds : first, time measured by
years, and, secondly, time measured only by an ascertained
order or succession of events. The one may be called
time-absolute, the other time-relative. Now, among all
the sciences wdiich afford us evidence on the antiquity of
man one, and one only, gives us any knowledge of time-
absolute, and that is history. From all the others we
can gather only the less definite information of time-rela-
tive. They can tell us of nothing more than of the order
12G XATURE AXD REVELATION".
in which certain events took place. But of the length
of interval between those events neither archaeology nor
geology nor ethnology can tell ns anything." (''Pri-
meval Man," pp. Y8, 79.)
It is true also that geologists of high standing in their
profession have blundered egregiously when they have
attempted to state geological time in years — <?.^., Sir
Charles Lyell, when he fixed the age of the Mississippi
Delta at one hundred thousand years. In doing tliis
he assumed that the rate of formation of the delta had
been uniform for all time, while the very nature of the
agency — that of the river current and floods — by which
it must have been formed, taken in connection with
what geology teaches respecting the formation of the
Mississippi Yalley itself, ought to have satisfied him that
such could not possibly have been the case. The Missis-
sippi Valley was formed originally by the upheaval of the
two great mountain ranges which bound it on the east
and west. As these mountain ranges, whether upheai^ed
rapidly or slowly, must have emerged covered with a
great thickness of silt and mud from the sea- bottom, the
amount of delta material washed away by rain and flood,
and carried down by the river current, in a given time,
must have ])een far greater when the valley was first
formed than it is now. It should not surprise us, then,
that Lyell's one hundred thousand years have, in the
hands of later and more cautious reasoners, dwindled to
four thousand four hundred.
Notwithstanding all this, the general conclusion remains
unquestionable, that our world was in being long be-
fore man was created ; and as a necessary consequence,
its age must be vastly greater than the six or seven
thousand years once allowed. In view of this fact, the
question at once presents itself, How is this great age to
THE MOSAIC COSMOGOXY. 127
be harmonized with the record contained in tlie first
chapters of Genesis ?
§ 48. The Popular Method of Reconciliation,
The method of reconciling the conchisions of geology,
especially its conclusion respecting the great age of the
world, vrith the statements of the first chapters of
Genesis most popular with Christian scientists in our
day, is one which assumes that the word day in these
chapters is to be understood not in the sense of a period
of twenty-four hours, but in the sense of an age, or long
period of time, characterized by something peculiar to it.
That the Hebrew word yom, here translated day, is
often used in this wider sense in the Scriptures is unques-
tionable. " As in the day of temptation in the wilder-
ness" (Psalm 95 : 8), w^here the day was one of forty
years. " In that day there shall be a fountain opened to
the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
for sin and for uncleanness," where the day covers the
whole Christian dispensation. And in this very cos-
mogony of Moses (Gen. 2:4): ^' In the day that the
Lord God made the earth and the heavens," it evi-
dently covers the whole period of the cosmogony. Un-
derstood in this sense, Moses' days of creation correspond
to the eras of geology ; and the '' morning and evening"
are but the opening and closing portions of those eras.
Adopting this interpretation of the word day. Professor
Dana writes: "The account" — ^.^., Moses' account —
"recognizes in creation two great eras, each of three
days— an inorganic and an organic.
"Each of these eras opens with the appearance of
light ; the first, light cosmical ; the second, light from
the sun, for the special use of the earth.
" Each era ends in a day of two great works, the two
128 NATURE AKD REYELATIOX.
sliown to be distinct by being severally pronounced good.
On the third day — that closing the inorganic era — there
was, first, the dividing of the land from the waters^ and
afterward the creation of vegetation^ or the institntion of
a kingdom of life, a work widely diverse from all preced-
ing it in the era. So on the sixth day, terminating the
organic era, there was, first, the creation of mammals^
and then a second far greater work, totally new in its
grandest elements — the creation of man.
'' The arrangement is, then, as follows :
' ' I. The Inorganic Eraj.
*^ 1st Day. — Light cosmical.
'' 2d Day. — The earth divided from the fluid around
it, or individualized.
, ^ (1. Outlinins: of the land and water,
<c 3d Dav \ .
•^* I 2. Creation of vegetation.
'' II. The Organic Era.
*' 4th Day.— Light from the snn.
*' 5th Day. — Creation of the lower orders of animals.
,, ^ , ^ (1. Creation of mammals.
'' 6th Day. ^ ,, ^^ .. * .
•^ (2. Creation oi man.
'' In addition, the last day of each era includes one
work typical of the era, and another related to it in
essential points, but also prophetic of the future.
Vegetation, while, for physical reasons, a part of the
creation of the third day, was also prophetic of the future
organic era, in which the progress of Hfe was the grand
characteristic. The record thus accords with the funda-
mental principle in history, that the characteristic of an
age has its beginnings with the age preceding. So, again,
man, while like other mammals in structure, even to the
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 129
homologies of every bone and muscle, was endowed with
a spiritual nature, which looks forward to another era,
that of s]3iritual existence. The seventh day — the day of
rest from the work of creation — is man's period of prep-
aration for tlie new existence ; and it is to promote this
special end that, in strict parallelism, the Sabbath follows
man's six days of work. " (Dana's " Geology," pp. 769,
T70.)
A harmony of genesis and geology, substantially the
same with that given above, is adopted by the late
Professor A. Guyot, in his recently published ^' Crea-
tion," to which 1 would refer the reader who may wish
for further details.
§ 49. ^ Second MeiJwd of Reconciliatiori.
A second method of reconciling the conclusions of
geology, especially its conclusion respecting the great age
of the world, with the statements of the first chapters of
Genesis, is, to understand Gen. 1 : 1 — '' In the begin-
ning God created the heaven and the earth" — to refer to
a period long anterior to that of the events recorded in
the subsequent portions of the chapters ; that Moses
makes this statement for the purpose of teaching us who
was the Creator of all things, and who, therefore, was the
proper object of man's adoration and worship ; that
then the long ages demanded by geology followed
ages in which the rock-strata, with all their fossils, were
deposited, with the exception of those in which human
remains occur ; and of these Moses says nothing, for
the sufficient reason that their history has nothing to do
with the religious history of man ; that when God begins
the subsequent setting in order of the earth which is to
fit it for the inhabitation of man, Moses resumes the nar-
rative in the words, " And the earth was without form
130 NATURE AND REVELATION".
and void " {loaste and void, Kew Yersion), '^ and darkness
was npon tlie face of the deep" — thus describing tlie
chaotic condition to which the earth was reduced at the
time — " and the spirit of God moved upon" {was hrood-
ing upon, margin) ^' the face of the waters." Then fol-
lows an account of God's preparation of the earth as a
dwelling-place for man, and the re-stocking it with plants
and animals adapted to its improved condition ; many of
these plants and animals being the same in kind with
those existing in preceding ages, otliers entirely new ;
and then the story of man's creation is given us, with
which the cosmogony properly closes.
The idea that Gen. 1 : 1—'' In the beginning God
created the lieaven and the earth" — refers to a period
long anterior to that of the events recorded in the sub-
sequent portions of the chapter is not a new idea, first
suggested by the wish to make the narrative of Moses
conform to the demands of geology. It was advocated
by Augustine and Theodoret among the early Christian
Fathers, and among modern commentators by Bishop
Patrick, v/ho died in 1707. He writes : '' How long all
thino-s continued in mere confusion, after the chaos was
created, before light was extracted out of it, we are not
told. It might be (for anything here revealed) a great
while ; and all that time the mighty spirit was making
Buch motions in it as prepared, disposed, and ripened
every part of it, for such productions as w.ere to appear
successively in such spaces of time as are here and after-
ward mentioned by Moses, who informs us, that after
things were so digested and made ready (by long fer-
mentation, perhaps) to be wrought into form, God pro-
duced every day, for six days together, some creature or
other, till all was finished, of which liglit was the very
first." (Patrick's Commentary on Gen. 1 : 5.)
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 131
1. One objection to this explanation of the Mosaic
record is, it requires ns to believe in the immediate
exercise of creative power, accomplishing in a brief space
what in ordinary circumstances would require a long
time — 'the re-stocking of the earth with all the vast variety
of animals in the sj^ace of two days — a work which had
previously occupied ages in perfecting. In answer to
this we say : In creation there is implied a direct inter-
vention of Divine power in the affairs of the world ; and
in other instances where such intervention has occurred
this same peculiarity often appears. In our Lord's mir-
acle of stilling the tempest, the record is : "" There arose
a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was
covered w^itli the waves. . . . Then He arose and
rebuked the w^inds and the sea ; and there was a great
calm." (Matt. 8 : 24-26.) Here the Divine word of
power accomplished in a moment wdiat in ordinary cir-
cumstances it would have required hours to effect. In
his miracle of turning water into w4ne at Cana we have
an illustration of the same truth in closer analogy with
the case under consideration. " He who does every year
prepare the wine in the grape," writes Trench, " caus-
ing it to drink up and expand with the moisture of earth
and heaven, to take this up into itself, and transmute it
into its own nobler juices, did now gather together all
this slow process into the act of a single moment, and
accomplish in an instant what ordinarily He does not ac-
complish but in many months." ("Notes on the
Miracles," p. 91.)
2. A second objection to this explanation is, that it
requires us to accept as true the destruction of all the
plants and animals — certainly of all that could not sur-
vive in the midst of the chaos described in verse 2 — •
existing upon the earth at the close of the geological era
132 XATURE AND REVELATIOi^.
immediately preceding that of man, and a re-stocking of
the earth in connection with man's creation ; a supposi-
tion which, it is said, involves an extravagant expendi-
ture of power on the part of God irreconcilable with our
ideas of His perfect skill and wisdom. To this it may be
answered :
(1) We know far too little of the elements of the prob-
lem under examination to pronounce a confident judg-
ment upon it. In the case of a tree, the leaves are the
active living portions of the organism ; the trunk and
branches are comparatively inert ; and this to such an
extent that some eminent botanists have been almost
ready to treat the leaf as the individual plant, and the
tree when in full leaf as a colony or nation of plants.
N'ow, every year, the myriads of leaves on a tree die, and
are cast aside, to be replaced by new leaves the succeed -
inir season. At first sis^ht there seems to be here as ex-
travagant an expenditure of power as in the case we are
considering. Why not suffer the old leaves to remain,
and retaining their vitality, do the life-work of the tree
year after year ? To this question the botanist answers :
The organism of the leaf, which in the spring is full of
vigor and in perfect working order, in doing the work
of a single summer becomes clogged and worn out, and
thus unfitted to continue the work for a longer time ;
and for this reason, in the wise economy of nature, it is
thrown aside, and a new leaf takes its place. Something
like this same law would seem to obtain in organic nature
at large. '' There are certain conceptions," writes the
Duke of Argyll, ^' which seem to rise unbidden in the
mind from the facts which geology has rev^caled touching
the history of creation. One of these is that each new
organic form, or each new variety of birth, seems always
to have been introduced with a wonderful energy of life.
THE MOSAIC COSMOGON^Y. 133
. . The vigor which prevails in the youth of an
individual is but the type of the vigor which has always
prevailed in new and rising species. All the complex
influences which led to their being born led also to their
being fat and fl.ourishing. That which caused them to
arise at all must have had the effect of causing them to
arise in strength. The condition of all the lower races
of men is in absolute contrast with everything which this
law demands. Everywhere and in everything they
exhibit all the characteristics of an energy which is spent,
of a force which has declined, of a vitality which has
been arrested." ("The Unity of Nature," pp. 428,
429.) If this be true, that organic forms and species of
plants and animals, like the individuals of which they
are made up, in the ordinary course of nature grow old
and unfitted for their work, and need to be replaced by
new creations, may not the close of the era immediately
preceding the creation of man have been one of these
periods of necessary change when that which had become
old needed to be replaced by the new ?
(2) The destruction of the then existing plants and
animals would seem to be necessarily involved in the
breaking up of the surface strata of the earth, and so
the necessity of a new creation when order is restored.
This breaking up of the earth's surface, and a breaking
up immediately preceding the creation of man, is a mat-
ter of supreme importance to man, if he is to lead the
life of a civilized being upon the earth. But for this
the riches of the earth — the vast coal fields of the carbon-
iferous age, the granites, the sandstones, and other valu-
able building materials, and most of the metallic ores,
would have lain forever beyond his reach. In attempt-
ing to reconcile the destruction of plants and animals
and the new creation supposed with the wisdom of God,
134 N"ATURE AND REVELATIOlSr.
we have then, in tlie facts jnst stated, a second ground
on which we may rest — the ground that " the end justi-
lies the means. "
3. To this explanation it may be objected that the
order of creation as given in the iirst chapter of Genesis
— viz. : first, plants, then fish and flying creatures, and,
lastly, land animals — is that which the records of the fos-
siliferous rocks declares to have been the order observed
when those rocks were deposited, and so of the long ages
of which this explanation supposes Moses to say nothing.
This is true, in general, though in the present state of
geological science it cannot be regarded as established in
all the particulars that Professor Guyot in his ^' Crea-
tion " would seem to imply. This order, in general,
was rendered necessary by the way in which the original
chaos was developed into the cosmos of the period. If
our earth was a second time reduced to a condition of
chaos, and then, developing under the operation of crea-
tive power in the space of six natural days into our pres-
ent cosmos, is to be restocked, the same reasons which
required a certain order in the first creation will, of
necessity, require the same order to be observed in the
new creation.
4. That the earth has been subject to great convul-
Bions at various points in its history is beyond all reason-
able question. '' It is perfectly certain," writes Professor
Ilnxley, " that at a comparatively recent period of the
world's history — the cretaceous epoch — none of the great
physical features which at present mark the surface of
the globe existed. It is certain that the Rocky Mountains
were not. It is certain that the Himalaya Mountains were
not. It is certain that the Alps and Pyrenees had no
existence. The evidence is of the plainest possible char-
acter ; and it is simply this : we find raised up on the
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 135
flanks of tliese monntains, 'elevated by the forces of up-
heaval which have given rise to them, masses of cretace-
ous rocks, which formed the bottom of the sea before
those mountains existed. It is therefore clear that the
elevatory forces which gave rise to the mountains operated
subsequently to the cretaceons epoch, and that the
mountains themselves are largely made up of the materials
deposited in the sea which once occupied their place.
As we go back in time, we meet with constant alternations
of sea and land, of estuary and open ocean." (" Kew
York Lectm-es on Evolution," Lecture I.) At how
recent a period great changes in the surface of the earth
have occurred we cannot say with certainty ; but this I
know from my owu personal observations, that on the
western flank of the Alleghany Mountains in Virginia the
fossil corals and gorgonias and sponges are of species
now living in the Gulf of Mexico. This explanation,
then, does not involve anything in the present condition
of the earth's surface at variance with ascertained facts.
To those who adopt it, one great recommendation of
the explanation we have been considering is, that it har-
monizes all that geology demands respecting the age of
the world with the Mosaic account of creation as eff^ected
in six days, understanding those days to have been nat-
ural days of twenty-four hours each. This interpretation
of the term day, it is said, is a more natural one than
that vrhich understands it to mean an indefinite period,
an era, and better agrees with the terms in which Moses
records the institution of the Sabbath : " And God blessed
the seventh day, and sanctified it ; because that in it He
rested from all His works which God created and made"
(Gen. 2:3); and more especially with the language of the
Fourth Commandment — ''Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy, . . . for in six days the Lord made
136 NATURE AND REVELATION.
heaven and earth, the sea, a-nd all that in them is, and
rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex. 20 : 8, 11.)
§ 50. The Proper Position for the Christian Apologist,
Does the reader ask, Which of these methods of recon-
ciling the cosmogony of Moses with the demands of
geology as to the great age of the earth shall I adopt ? I
answer, Neither of them as a finality. Either of them
will fully answer the purposes of Cliristian apology, will
suffice to show that there is no real conflict on this point
between the Mosaic cosmogony and tlie fairly established
conclusions of the geologist. The time for making out
a complete ^'harmony" of the two has not yet come.
That the reader may see more distinctly the exact nature
of the difficulty in making out a harmony, I would ask
him to remember that the Mosaic cosmogony is given us
in the language of common life — a language in which
things are described as they appear (§ 4), while the geo-
logical record is in the language of science ; and a har-
mony of the two involves the correct translation of the
one into the language of the other.
The nature of the work to l)e done will be best appre-
hended by the examination of a particular instance in
which a probable harmony has been established. In
Joshua 10 : 13, 14 we read : ''So the sun stood still in
the midst of the heaven" (" in the division of the heavens
above the horizon" {Bush), and so, apparently, " upon
Gibeon"), "and hasted not to go down about a whole
day. And there was no day like that before it or after
it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man :
for the Lord fought for Israel."
On the expression in our English Bible, " And hasted
not to go down about a whole day," Professor Bush, who
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 137
forty years ago was considered the finest Hebrew scholar
in America, writes : '' This should be ' hasted not to go
down as at the perfect day ' — i.e. , as it naturally does when
the day is finished, when the ordinary space of a day has
elapsed. This we conceive to be the true force of the
original, though aware that it requires one to be ac-
quainted with the Hebrew in order to feel the force of
the evidence in favor of such a rendering. Such an one,
however, upon turning to the original of Ex. 31 : 18 ;
Dent. 16 : 6 ; 2-1 : 13 ; Ps. 73 : 19, will find, if we mistake
not, ample proof of the correctness of this interpretation.
The meaning, as we understand it, is not that the day
was miraculously lengthened out to the extent of twelve
hours, or another whole day, but simply that when the
ordinary duration of a day was completed, the sun still
delayed his setting, but for how long a time we are not
informed ; long enough, however, we may presume, for
fully accomplishing the object for which the miracle was
granted." (Bush on Joshua, in loo.) And Dr. A.
Clarke writes : '^ And the sun stood still in the (upper)
hemisphere of the heaven, and hasted not to go down,
when the day was complete — that is, though the day was
then complete, the sun being in the horizon, the line
that to the eye constituted the mid -heaven, yet it hasted
not to go down, was miraculously sustained in its then
almost setting position ; and this seems still more evident
from the moon appearing at that time, which it is not
reasonable to suppose could be visible in the glare of light
occasioned by a noonday sun." (Clarke's Commen-
tary, in loG.) Thus much toward a correct rendering
of the Bible record.
Turnino: now to the translation of this record, written
in the language of common life, into the language of
science. Inasmuch as the ordinary way in which the sun
138 NATURE AND REVELATION-.
and moon are made to rise and set is by tlie revolution
of the earth upon its axis, and assuming, as our fathers
did, that this was the only way, the proper translation
would be — so the earth stopped in its revolution upon its
axis for several hours toward the close of the day. To
the credibiHty of such an event as this infidel scientists
have made two objections, perplexing to the older com-
mentators—viz.: (1) That had such a day occurred it
must have extended over half the globe, and that the
half in which all the civilized nations of antiquity were
embraced ; and so we have a right to expect that some
notice of it would have reached us from other sources,
especially as the Chaldeans and Egyptians were noted for
their devotion to astronomy ; and (2) that when we take
into account all tliat science teaches us is necessarily in-
volved in stopping the revolution of the earth upon its
axis, even for an hour, we must regard this as the most
stupendous miracle recorded in the Scriptures ; and it
has been intimated that had Joshua understood the true
nature of our solar system, or had he written under in-
spiration of a Being who did understand it, he would
never have made such a record as this.
Within the present century scientists have learned
that the revolution of the earth upon its axis is not the
only means by which a body like the sun may be, in ap-
pearance, raised above the horizon. ^Yhat is termed
mirage, caused by the coming in of a dense stratum of
air at some distance above the earth's surface, will pro-
duce this same effect. " The particular form of mirage
known as looming consists in an excessive apparent
elevation of the object. A most remarkable case of this
sort occurred on the 2Gth of July, 1798, at Hastings.
From this place the French coast is fifty miles distant ;
yet from the seaside the whole coast of France from
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 139
Calais to near Dieppe was distinctly visible^ and con-
tinued so for tliree hours." (''Chambers's Encjclo-
pnedia. ") In the summer of 1856 the author witnessed a
mirage on Lake Michigan, by which the Manitou Islands,
some twenty miles distant from his point of observation,
were raised, in appearance, thirty degrees, or two hours,
above the horizon.
Knowing these facts, were I to attempt to translate
the record of Joshua's miracle into the lanoi-uai^e of
science, I would not write. So the earth stopped in its
revolution upon its axis, but so the Lord caused a mirage
by which tlie sun and moon were made to remain for a
season, in appearance, above the horizon ; and thus
lengthened out the day, for the Lord fought for Israel.
This interpretation does not in any way atfect the truly
miraculous character of the event recorded ; but it does
explain a particular recorded, otherwise inexplicable —
viz. : that the moon as well as the sun remained above the
horizon ; and it etfectually answers the cavils (1) that
this remarkable day is not mentioned by the Chaldean
or Egyptian astronomers, inasmuch as a lengthening of
the day produced in this way would not extend many
miles from its centre at Gibeon ; and (2) the stupendous
character of the event disappears, and the miracle takes
its place naturally in the class of miracles recorded in
the Old Testament Scriptures.
We have thus made out a probable "harmony"
between this record of Joshua and the demands of
science, such as was impossible a century ago. And
this has been done (1) by correcting the English ver-
sion in the light of a more careful study of the Hebrew
original ; and (2) by science, in its progress, making
us acquainted with truth unknown to our fathers ; not
tliat our fathers never witnessed a mirage, but they
140 NATURE AXD REYELATIOX.
knew not how to explain it — could not tell how it was
produced.
That the authorized English version of Genesis is not
perfect all will admit. The new version, by a very slight
change, the correctness of which no one will question
— viz.: the substitution in ch. 1 : 21 of "great sea-
monsters" for " great whales" — has entirely removed an
alleged discrepancy of the Mosaic cosmogony, as inter-
preted by Dana and Guyot, with the cosmogony of
science. Xo longer ago than 1876 Professor Huxley
wrote : " If it be true that all varieties of fishes, and the
great whales, and the like made their appearance on the
fifth day, we ought to fi.nd the remains of these animals
in the older rocks — in those which were deposited before
the carboniferous epoch. Fishes we do find in consider-
able numbers and variety ; but the great whales are
absent. " ("New York Lectures on Evol ution, ' ' Lecture
I.) The whale, as we now use the term, is a warm-
blooded mammal, and its remains do not occur in the
strata Professor Huxley refers to ; but tlie remains of
" great sea-monsters" do, as every geologist knows. That
the cosmogony of geology is yet very incomplete, and
very uncertain, too, especially as regards the element of
time^ every intelligent geologist will admit. To be con-
vinced of this, one needs but to read Professor Huxley's
address before the British Geological Society, pubhshed
in his volume of " Lay Sermons," more particularly the
part of it concerning " geological cotemporaneity."
In such circumstances the construction of a perfect
"harmony" of the two records is out of the question.
"What we can do, and all we can safely do at present is,
to collate the two from time to time, carefully distin-
guishing between the established truths of science and
the unprov^ed hypotheses of enthusiastic scientists, noting
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 141
tlie points in which they agree, and quietly leaving
seeming discrepancies to be explained in the future.
This is the course which the author has pursued for many
years ; and in those years he has seen science, in more
instances than one, adopt the very doctrines of the
Mosaic cosmogony which at one time it denounced — e.().^
the doctrines of " the unity of mankind " (§ 46) and the
laws of " biogenesis" and " homogenesis." (§ 44.)
Ceeatio:n vs. Evolution.
The Mosaic cosmogony has long been understood to
embody the doctrine of creation, as contradistinguished
from that of evolution. As already remarked, '' the
hypothesis of evolution, taken in its most limited range,
as excluding inorganic nature on the one hand, and so
recognizing the fact that a great gulf separates between
the non-living and the living, and excluding also man,
on the other hand, and so recognizing the fact that an
impassable gulf separates the brute from immortal man
' made in the image of God,' and understanding it as sim-
ply ' a mode of creation,' ... is not irreconcilable with
the Bible account of the origin of plants and animals "
(see § 37) ; but, certainlj^, it does not furnish as natural
an interpretation as the old theory of creation does.
As evolution in this form is persistently urged upon our
acceptance by some who firmly believe in the divine in-
spiration of Genesis, our discussion of the Mosaic cosmog-
ony would be incomplete without some examination of
this claim ; and to this we now ask the reader's attention.
§ 51. nuxley' s Objection to Creation as Supernatural.
" The hypotheses respecting the origin of species which
profess to stand upon a scientific basis, and as such alone
142 NATURE AND REVELATION.
demand serious attention, are of two kinds. The one,
the ' special creation ' hypothesis, presumes every species
to have oriscinated from one or more stocks, these not
being the result of the modification of any other form of
living matter, or arising by natural agencies, but being
produced as such by a supernatural creative act. The
other, the so-called ' transmutation' hypothesis, considers
that all existing species are the result of pre-existing
species, and those of their predecessors, by agencies
similar to those which at the present day produce va-
rieties and races, and therefore in an altogether natural
way ; and it is a probable, though not a necessary con-
sequence of this hypothesis, that all living beings have
arisen from a single stock. With respect to the origin of
this primitive stock or stocks, the doctrine of the origin
of species is obviously not necessarily concerned. The
transmutation hypothesis, for example, is perfectly con-
sistent with either the conception of a special creation of
the primitive germ or w^ith the supposition of its hav-
ing arisen, as a modification of inorganic matter, by
natural causes." (" Lay Sermons," pp. 279, 280.)
1. Professor Huxley has here correctly stated" the
question between the hypotheses of creation and evolution
as a question concerning the origin of species. Varieties
are constantly being produced under the operation of
changes of climate, and all the varied agencies we em-
brace under the general name of " cultivation ;" and
they are constantly disappearing, too, when neglected,
under the operation of the general law of " reversion to
type." The appearance and disappearance of varieties
is taking place, from time to time, under our eyes ; and
though but imperfectly understood as yet, it has long
been a subject of study to man. Not so witli species.
The appearance of a new species man has never seen.
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 143
" Some varieties of form," writes the Duke of Argyll,
" are effected in a few am'mals by domestication and by
constant care in tlie selection of peculiarities transmissi-
ble to the young. But these variations are all within
certain Jimits, and wherever human care relaxes or is
abandoned the old forms return, and the selected char-
acters disappear. The founding of new forms by the
union of different species, even when standing in close
natural relation to each other, is absolutely forbidden by
the sentence of sterility which nature pronounces and en-
forces upon all hybrid offspring. And so it results that
man has never seen the origin of any species. Creation
by birth is the only kind of creation he has ever seen ;
and from this kind of creation he has never seen a new
species come." ('' Primeval Man," pp. 39, 40.)
In the Mosaic cosmogony creation, as we have seen,
is of two kinds — viz, : the making out of nothing, as in
his words, '' In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth," and the making out of pre-existing
materials, as in his words, " God created man in His
own image," of which creation he afterward says, " And
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth." It
is with creation in the latter sense alone we have to do at
present ; and in this sense creation is just as natural a
way of originating a species as evolution is. If man has
never seen a sj^ecies originated by creation, neither has
he ever seen a species originated by evolution. The
origination of species, in whatever way it has been
effected, belongs to an era that is long passed. The
testimony of science on this point is at one with that of
Moses. (§ 16.) If all have seen new individuals evolved,
developed, from a living germ, under the operation of
vital forces, so have all seen new individuals created out
of inorganic matter, " the dust of the earth," under the
14:4 NATURE AInD REVELATION".
operation of these same vital forces. No phenomenon is
more familiar than that of making a plant, in all the per-
fection of its completed, living structure, out of water,
carbonic acid, and ammonia.
On Professor Huxley's statement, that creation is
supernatural, we remark, creation is supernatural only
on the condition that we banish God from nature. The
term supernatural, as used by Spencer, Huxley, and other
writers of the class to which they belong, is " in the
highest degree ambiguous and deceptive. It assumes
that the system of ' nature ' in which we live and of
which we form a part is limited to purely physical
agencies, linked together by nothing but mechanical
necessity. There might indeed be no harm in this limi-
tation of the word nature if it could possibly be adhered
to. But it is not possible to adhere to it, and that for
the best of all reasons, because even inanimate nature,
as we habitually see it and are obliged to speak of it, is
not a system which gives us the idea of being governed
and guided by mechanical necessity. No wonder men
lind it difficult to believe in the supernatural, if by the
supernatural they mean an agency which is nowhere pres-
ent in the visible and intelligible universe, or is not
implicitly represented and continually reflected there ;
for indeed, in this sense, no Christian can believe in the
supernatural, in a creation from which the creator has
been banished, or has withdrawn himself. On the other
hand, if by the supernatural we mean an agency which,
while ever present in the material and intelligible universe,
is not confined to it, but transcends it, then indeed the
difficulty is not in believing it, but in disbelieving it.
No man can really hold that the material system which
is visible or intelligible to us is anything more than a
fragment of a part. No man can believe that its existing
THE MOSAIC COSMOGOKY. 145
arrangements of matter and force are self- caused, self-
originated, and self-sustained. It is not possible, there-
fore, so to ' crib, cabin, and confine ' our conceptions of
natnre as to exclude elements which essentially belong
to what is called the supernatural. And there is another
reason why it is impossible to adhere to such conceptions
of the natural, and that is, that it would compel us to
exclude the mind of man, and indeed the lesser minds of
all living things, from oar scientific definitions of natnre,
and to establish an absolute and rigorous separation
between all of these and the world in which they mos^e
and act. We have seen not only ho^v impracticable such
a separation is, but how false it is to the facts of science.
This same condemnation must fall on every conception
of the universe which assumes this separation as not only
important, but fundamental. Yet this is the very separa-
tion on wdiich those philosophers absolutely depend who
condemn what they call the supernatural in our concep-
tions and explanations of the world." (''Unity of
E'ature," pp. 27-i, 275.)
§ 52. Huxley'^ s Objection to Creation as Subject to no
Law.
" A phenomenon is explained when it is shown to be a
case of some general law of nature ; but the supernatural
interposition of the Creator can, by the nature of the
case, exemplify no law ; and if species have arisen in
this way, it is absurd to attempt to discuss their origin."
("Lay Sermons," p. 282.)
Creation, if it be the work of an almighty and wise
creator, and wrought with a special end in view — and
such is the character of the creation which is generally
believed to be taught in the Mosaic cosmogony — is as
fully subject to law as evolution can possibly be. The
146 KATURE AND EEVELATIOl?".
proof of tliis statement is to be found in the fact that it
furnishes us with as simple and complete an exphanation
of " the gradual advance in the type of living creatures
and the natural grouping of plants and animals as any
system of evolution can."
Let us examine a case of creation— creation in the
sense of making out of pre-existing material — as closely
analogous to that of the origin of species as our limited
experience can furnish us— viz. : the case of the various
form-s of habitation, or house, which man has con-
structed for himself. The bark hut, the log cabin, the
substantial farm-house, the brown-stone city residence,
and the marble palace have succeeded eacli other in
regular order, from "the primordial to the most per-
fect," as civilization has advanced. But these are not the
only variations we meet with. In Eussia houses are built
:svith thick walls and with openings small and few in num-
ber, and capable of being tightly closed. In the southern
United States houses are built with many and large doors
and windovrs, and open piazzas. In Yenezuela they are
built on piles, so as to be safe from floods. In China
they are slight structures of bamboo, and in some parts
of Africa hollow hemispheres of dried mud. These are
all variations determined by ''environment." Man's
wants have led him to build honses for other purposes
than his own inhabitation ; and hence we have barns, and
warehouses, and cotton factories, and railroad depots,
and churches, and court-houses, and forts, each differing
from all the others in certain particulars, the exact nature
of their " diflerentiation " being determined by the pur-
pose they were intended to serve. In all these different
forms of structure there are certain "homologies"
which arrest our attention, such as their all possessing
floors, and walls, and roof, and openings of some kind
THE MOSAIC COSMOGON"Y. 147
or other ; and there are, at the same time, differences,
whicli adapt each to some particular end or use. Tliere
is an order which pervades the whole ; and these homol-
Oiries and differences would furnish a basis for a natural
classiiication of houses, if we were disposed to make such
classification.
How shall we account for all this ? Had we no knowl-
edge of the way in which this result has been produced,
some might say the bark hut '' evolved " the log cabin,
and the log cabin " evolved" the substantial farm-house,
and the Yeneziielian house built upon piles was the result
of " the survival of the fittest ;" and they might say this
for many of the same reasons that similar assertions are
made respecting orders and species in the organic world.
In this instance, however, none will say this, because we
all know that this orderly variation is the result of human
power, acting under the guidance of human intelligence,
and for the attainment of a definite end. All these dif-
ferent structures are the product of man's creative power,
and not of evolution, natural or artificial. And there is
evidently a law that has governed this creation — viz. : the
law of adaptation to a specific end, that is just as truly a
law, and just as certain in its operation as the law of
" the survival of the fittest," or any other law which the
evolutionist has imagined to govern the origin of species.
§ 53. Huxley^ 8 Ohjection to Creation as Implying an
Extravagant Expenditure of Divine Power.
''A section a hundred feet thick " of a certain rock
stratum in England " will exhibit, at different heights,
a dozen species of anmionites, none of which passes from
its particular zone of limestone or clay into the zone
below it, or into that above it ; so that those who adopt
the doctrine of a special creation must be prepared to
148 NATURE AND REVELATION.
admit that at intervals of time, corresponding with the
thickness of those beds, the Creator thought fit to inter-
fere with the natural course of events, for the purpose
of making a new ammonite. It is not easy to transplant
one's self mto the frame of mind of those who can accept
such a conclusion as this on any evidence short of abso-
lute demonstration." ('' Lay Sermons," p. 281.)
On this objection of Professor Huxley I remark :
1. Instead of using the simple term '' creation " to
designate a mode of the origin of species, he uses the ex-
pression '^ special creation," and in this he is followed by
most evolutionists in writing on the subject. With the
atheistic evolutionist this is well enough, but not so with
the theistic evolutionist, who regards evolution '' as a
mode of creation." The origination of a species by
evolution is as much a " special creation " in his view of
the matter as the origination of a species in any other
way. The proper term, if any qualifying word is to be
used, is not ^'special," but '' immediate." Immediate
creation is the only proper correlative to creation by
evolution.
2. The force of Professor Huxley's objection rests
entirely upon a misconception* of the nature of God and
the nature of His connection with our world during the
period of the Mosaic cosmogony. According to Scripture,
God is everywhere present and ever active in the affairs
of the world. This truth Paul taught the Athenians in his
words — " In Him" (God) '' we live, and move, and have
our being." (Acts 17 : 28.) And our Lord taught the
same doctrine with even greater emphasis — " Are not two
sparrows sold for a farthing ? and one of them shall not
fall on the ground without your Father. But the very
liairs of your head are all numbered. " (Matt. 10 : 29, 30.)
The era of creation, the era of the origin of species, the
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 149
era covered by the Mosaic cosmogony, lias passed. It
closed with the creation of man. (§ 46.) During that
period it is fair to infer that God was just as everywhere
present and ever active in the work of creation as He is
in the present era in the work of Providence. To have
brought into being successively and after short inter-
vals a number of ammonites was at that time no '' inter-
ference with the natural course of events," for that was
the era of creation. If there are a hundred different
species of animals to be brought into being, it will call
for no greater expenditure of power to create them in
succession than to create them all at once ; and if they
are, in their structure, specially adapted to certain con-
ditions of a gradually imj^roving world, wisdom would
require that each should be created jnst when and where
the improving world becomes fitted to furnish it a home.
§ 54. Points at which the Hypothesis of Evolxition
Breaks Down.
Besides the objections to the hypothesis of evolution
presented in our separate consideration of it, there is an
additional one which presents itself when we examine
the claims to our acceptance of evolution and creation as
competing claims, and that is, that evolution fails us at
two, if not three most important points in making out a
complete cosmogony — viz.: (1) At the beginning of tlie
existence of the matter of the world. That the world
had a beginning science testifies in unmistakable terms ;
and evolution can give us no account of that beginning.
We are compelled to fall back upon the explanation con-
tained in the words, '' In tlie beginning God created
the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1 : 1.) (2) At the
beginning of life. ^' No conclusion of modern science is
more widely received or more confidently maintained
150 NATURE AND. REVELATION.
than that which teaches that in the earlj history of onr
planet hfe was unknown. Not only was it not actual,
l)Lit it was not possible. Life then was not, but life now
is. Life then had a beginning. Wliat was that beginning ?
and whence'^" (Wainwright's '^Scientific Sophism,"
ch. 8.) Here, again, evolution is dumb, and Darwin is
compelled to begin his series with " certain primordial
living beings." (-3) At the origin of man, bearing as he
does " the image of God." It is true that Darwin and
Huxley have attempted to trace, or, rather, to imagine,
the evolution of man from some lost form of anthro-
poid ape ; but most of our sober scientists to-day regard
what Huxley calls ^' the great gulf in intellectual and
moral matters which lies between man and the wdiole
of the loAver creation" as an impassable gulf to any and
every method of evolution. At these three points — and
they are most important points in any system of cos-
mogony, far more so than the passage of any one species
of plant or animal to the species next above it — evolu-
tion utterly fails us, and creation furnishes the only in-
telligible and credible explanation which has ever been
given.
In his article on '' Tlie Ofigin of Species," Professor
Huxley has a beautiful passage, to which I will ask the
reader's attention. Speaking of growth-development in
its earlier stages, he writes : " Examine the recently laid
egg of some common animal, such as a salamander or a
newt. It is a minute spheroid, in which the best micro-
scope will reveal nothing but a structureless sac, en-
closing a glairy fluid, holding granules in suspension.
But strange possibilities lie dormant in that semi-fluid
globule. Let a moderate supply of warmth reach its
watery cradle, and the plastic matter undergoes changes
so rapid and yet so steady and purpose-like in their sue-
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY. 151
cession that one can only compare tliem to tlioso operated
by a skilled modeller upon a formless lump of clay. As
with an invisible trowel, the mass is divided and sub-
divided into smaller and smaller portions, until it is re-
duced to an aggregation of granules, not too large to
build withal the finest fabric of the nascent organism.
And then it is as if a delicate finger traced out the line
to be occupied by the spinal column, and moulded the
contour of the body, pinching up the head at one end,
the tail at the other, and fashioning flank and limb in
due salamandrine proportions in so artistic a way that,
after watching the process hour by hour, one is almost
involuntarily possessed by the notion that some more
subtile aid to vision than an achromatic would show the
hidden artist, with his plan before him, striving with
skilful manipulation to perfect his work." ('' Lay Ser-
mons," pp. 260, 261.) This "hidden artist, with his
plan before him," is just what the doctrine of creation
brings to our knowledge, working not in these variations
of growth-development alone, but in all the variations of
nature as w^ell — a living Creator, and not a dead, insensate
law.
§ 55. Conclusion,
Heturning now to the question with which we started,
"Why is it that while the cosmological speculations of
the Egyptians and the Greeks— the two foremost nations
of antiquity — have come to be universally regarded as
myths, the cosmogony of Moses, in the light of this our
nineteenth century, " controls the thoughts of nine tenths
of the civilized world " ? We answer, in addition to the
reason already given, that it is so intertwined with the
record of what nine tenths of the civilized world regard
as the only true religion, that it must be believed as
widely as that religion prevails ; there is a second reason,
152 NATURE AND REVELATION.
wliicli the reader is now prepared to apjDreciate — viz. : that
while science, in its progress, has shown the cosmogonies
of the Egyptians and the Greeks to be incredible and
puerile, it has shown, more and more clearly, the cor-
rectness, in all important particulars, of the cosmogony
of Moses. When, for a time, there has seemed to be
some discrepancy between the conclusions of science
and the statements of Moses — and this has occurred more
than once — further and more thorough investigation has
always removed that discrepancy, and this to such an
extent that if the geologist attempts to-day to wTite
out a scientific cosmogony, he finds himself compelled to
make it, in all its leading particulars, the cosmogony of
Moses.
Y.
THE PENTATEUCH.^
§ 56. '' The Higher Criticism.'^'^
The first five books of the Old Testament Scriptures,
called by the Jews "the Torah" — i. e., the law, or
'* Torath Moslieh" — i.e.^ the Law of Moses, are by
Christian writers generally styled the Pentateuch.
The manuscrijDts of the Pentateuch form a single roll,
or volume, and are divided not into books, but into
larger and smaller sections. The division into five books,
as we have it in our English Bible, was probably made
by the Greek translators in preparing the Septuagint, as
the titles of the several books are of Greek and not He-
brew origin.
As far back as we can trace its history, the Pentateuch
has been regarded by Jewish as well as Christian writers,
with rare exceptions, as written by Moses, and as credible
history. Of late this opinion has been assailed under
the guise of what is popularly styled '^ the higher
criticism."
What is this higher criticism, and what does it pro-
fess ? What it is, is a question we will be better prepared
to answer at a later stage of this discussion. What it
professes, is to judge of and decide all questions respect-
ing the interpretation, the authorship, and the credibility
* The substance of this paper was originally delivered as three dis-
courses in the First Presbj'terian Church, Norfolk, in June, 1883,
and subsequently published in pamphlet form.
154 NATURE AND REVELATIOX.
of the several parts of Scripture, just as we would similar
questions respecting any other book. In the words of
Hobertson Smith, one of the ablest among the British
advocates of this higher criticism, " the ordinary laws
of evidence and good sense must be our guides. And
these we must apply to the Bible, just as we should do
to any other ancient book." ('' The Old Testament in
the Jewish Church," Lecture I.) Bightly understood,
no one can object to such a proceeding as this. How the
higher critics understand it we shall see in the course of
our investigation.
What are the conclusions to which the higher critics
have come in applying their criticism to the Scriptures ?
To this question it is impossible to give a definite answer,
for no two of them agree in their conclusions. Confin-
ing our attention to the Pentateucli :
Professor Robertson Smith comes to the conclusion
that a small part of Exodus — viz, : ch. 21-23 — and the
first eleven chapters of Deuteronomy were written by
Moses ; but by far the larger part of the Pentateuch was
w^ritten in the days of Josiah — was, in fact, " the book
of the law" found in repairing the Temple (see 2 Kings
22), eight hundred years after Moses' day ; and the re-
mainder is made up of traditions first reduced to writ-
ing after the Captivity in Babylon, probably by Ezra,
two hundred years later still — these last-mentioned por-
tions being ascribed to Moses, in order to give them
greater authority among the Jews.
The conchisions to which Professor Crawford II. Toy,
of Harvard, the latest American writer on the side of
*'the higher criticism," comes, I will give you in his
own words. In his '' History of the Eeligion of Israel "
he writes :
^' A comparatively large law book was written (Deu-
THE PENTATEUCH. 155
teronomy, about b.c. 622) ; and this, in accordance
with the ideas of the times, which demanded the author-
ity of ancient sages and lawgivers, was ascribed to Moses.
, . . After various Jaw books had been written they
were all gathered up, sifted, and edited about the time
of Ezra (b.c. 450) as one book. This is substantially our
present Law {Tora) or Pentateuch" (pp. 6, Y).
'' Nations do not easily change their gods ; it is not
likely that Moses could or would introduce a new deity.
But as the Israelites believed that he had made some
great change, it may be that throngh his means the wor-
ship of Yah we became more general — became, in fact,
in a real sense, the national worship. This would not
necessarily mean that no other deities were worshipped.
. . . Still less would it mean that there was only one
God — that is, that all other pretended gods were nothing.
This is what we believe, and what the later Israelites
(about the time of the Exile and on) believed ; but David
and generations after him tliought that Kemosli and
Dagon and the rest were real gods, only not gods of
Israel. Exactly what Moses' belief was we do not know.
Probably, it may be said, he thought, as people in his
day generally did, that there were a great many gods,
that each nation had its own deity or deities ; but he
wished Israel to worship only Yahwe. And, in point of
fact, they did remain faithful to Yahwe, till at last they
abandoned all others" (p. 24).
^' If we cannot suppose that the Pentateuch is correct
history, then we do not know precisely what Moses did
for his people. Did he try to make them more humane
as well as more spiritual ? It seems that in those days they
were half barbarians. Was Moses a reformer like the
Athenian Solon ? It is hard to say. . . . From all that
we do know we are led to believe that what Moses did
156 XATURE AND REVELATIOX.
was rather to organize the people and give them an im-
pulse in religion than to frame any code of laws or make
any great change in their institutions. In after years it
became the fashion to think of him as the author of al-
most all the religious customs of the land ; as the divinely
appointed lawgiv^er who received his instructions {Tora,
the Israelites called it) from the mouth of Yahwe him-
self. But it is not very important for us to be able to
say that Moses did just this and that. Under the guid-
ance of God Israel grew in wisdom, and worked out a
great Tora^ an instruction in righteousness ; and it mat-
ters little to us whether it was Moses or somebody else
who had the chief part in it. But it is probable that he
was a great man, and did much for his people" (pp.
25, 26)!"
" The March from Goshen to Canaan. — After leav-
ing Egypt the Israelites seem to have moved from
place to place in the northern part of Arabia, where they
spent some time before reaching Canaan. Their route
is described in a general way in the books of Deuter-
onomy (1-3 and 10 : 6, 7), Exodus (14-19), and Numbers
(10-14:, 20-22) ; and there is a list of stations (an itinerary)
in ^Numbers 33. But these ^vere written so lono: after
the events occurred that we cannot rely on their correct-
ness. Whether, in leaving Goshen, they crossed the
upper part of the Red Sea, or skirted the Sirbonian Lake,
or went some other way, there is at present no mean-s of
determining. There was in later times a firm belief
among the Israelites that they had spent some time at
Mount Sinai, in the peninsula called by the Greeks and
Romans Arabia Petrrea, and tliat there the law was given
by God through Moses. We know now that it was not
there that God gave Israel its law ; but the people, or a
part of them, may have stayed there awhile. Thence
THE PENTATEUCH. 157
they marched northward toward the Dead Sea, and per-
haps approached their new land in two divisions — one
on the east and one on tlie west of the sea" (p. 27).
I have quoted thus largely from Dr. Toy's book for
two reasons : (1) It is the first attempt made, in so far
as I know, to bring the conclusions of the higher criticism
to the attention of the mass of the people. His " His-
tory of the Religion of Israel" was prepared for the
use of Sabbath-schools, is published by the Unitarian
Sunday-school Society, Boston ; and as the secretary of
that society states in the Ceiitury Magazine for July,
18S5, is one of tliree books in common use with the ad-
vanced classes in the Sunday-schools of that denomina-
tion ; and (2) it seems to me that Dr. Toy has but
honestly and fairly carried out the methods of the
*' higher criticism" to their legitimate conclusions. And
it is important in some cases that a man should see be-
forehand whither certain principles and methods of criti-
cism will lead him, that thus he may be induced to give
a careful and thorough examination of them at the outset.
§ 57. Tlie Question Stated.
I do Dr. Toy no injustice, I think, when I state as
Ills conclusions : (1) That there is no sufficient reason for
believing that Moses wrote any part of the Pentateuch,
even the small portion which Professor Smith assigns
him ; and (2) that the Pentateuch is not '' correct " or
credible history.
In opposition to this the common faith of most Jewish
and Christian writers alike is briefly expressed in the
words — " The law was given to Moses." The long-
establislied belief of the Church — traditional belief, as
the higher critics like to call it — is that the Pentateuch
was written by Moses, and is inspired in the sense in
158 NATURE AND REVELATION.
•which Peter defines that word — ' ' Holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " (2
Pet. 1 : 21), and is therefore credible history.
Which of these conclusions shall we accept — that of
Dr. Toy, or the common faith of the Church ? Let the
principle professedly followed by the higher critics as a
fundamental principle of sound criticism — viz.: to judge
of questions concerning the Scriptures just as we would
judge of similar questions respecting any other book —
decide.
There is a book bearing the title of ^' Julius Caesar's
Gallic Wars" which is universally received — by the
higher critics as well as others — as written by the man
whose name it bears, and as credible history. I select
this book, because its author, JuHus Ceesar, sustains to
his history very much the same relation that Moses does
to the Pentateuch : he was an eye-witness and a prin-
cipal actor in most of the events which he records.
Why do we receive this book as authentic — i, e., as writ-
ten by the man whose name it bears ; and credible — i.e.,
worthy to be believed ? Mainly for the reasons :
1. The book in several passages claims to have been
written by Julius Coesar, and* to be true history.
2. It has been quoted and referred to by writers in
every age, from Caesar's day to the present, as authentic
and credible.
3. It bears internal marks of having been written by
Caesar, and of being true history.
Let us apply these rules of judging to the case of
Moses and the Pentateuch.
THE PENTATEUCH. 159
§ 58. The Pentateuch claims Moses as its Author^ and
to he True History.
Tills claim is made in siicli ^lassages as the following
— viz.: "And Moses came and told the j)eople all the
words of the Lord, and all the judgments : and all the
people answered with one voice, and said. All the words
which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote
all the words of the Lord." (Ex. 2i : 3, 4.) " And the
Lord said nnto Moses^ Write thou these imrds : for after
the tenor of these words 1 have made a covenant with thee
and with Israel." (Ex. 34: : 27.) '^ And Moses wrote
their goings out according to their journeys by the com-
mandment of the Lord ; and these are their journeys ac-
cording to their goings out." (Num. 33 : 2.) This is
the introduction to the itinerary of Israel's travels in the
wilderness, of which Dr. Toy explicitly denies the Mosaic
authorship, and says : " It was written so long after the
events occurred, that we cannot rely on its correctness."
'' And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the
priest the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the cove-
nant of the Lord, and unto the elders of Israel. And
Moses commanded them, saying. At the end of every
seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in
the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel has come to ap-
pear before the Lord thy God in the place which he
shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in
their hearing." (Deut. 31 : 9-11.) Of a compliance
Vv'ith this requirement thus publicly to read the law, we
have an account in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah,
where we are told that the reading continued from
" morning until midday."
'' And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end
of writing the words of this law in a book, until they
160 KATURE AND REVEL ATIOliq-.
were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which
bare the ariv of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take
this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of
the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
for a witness against thee. For 1 know thy rebelhon,
and thy stiff neck : behold, while 1 am yet alive with
you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord ;
and how much more after my death V ' (Deut. 31 : 2i-27.)
The book here mentioned is doubtless the book found in
the temple in Josiah's day (see 2 Chron. 31), about
which the higher critics have written so much.
It is true that in none of the passages quoted above
does Moses claim to have written all of the Pentateuch ;
but, fairly interpreted, he certainly does claim to have
written the most important parts of it, and some of the
very parts of which the higher critics deny his author-
ship.
§59. Quotations of the Pentateuch as Authentic and
Credihle.
Before proceeding to cite these quotations, I would ask
the reader to remark the fact that the Bible is not one
book, written by one man, amd at one time, but is a col-
lection of many books, written by different men, at
different times, during a period of fifteen centuries.
The Old Testament contains all the extant literature of
a great nation for a period of a thousand years.
1. Beginning with the oldest of these books, other
than the five books ascribed to Moses — viz. : the book
of Joshua, who for a large part of his life was a contem-
porary and intimately associated with Moses, and suc-
ceeded him in the leadership of Israel — we read : '' The
Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, ... Be thou
Gtroug and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to
THE pe:n"tatelx'H. IGl
do according to all tlie law^ ^vhich Hoses mv servant
cominanded thee : turn not from it to the riglit hand or
to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou
goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy
mouth ; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night,
that thou may est observe to do according to all that is
written therein." (Joshua 1 : 7, 8.)
And here let me remark, in passing, to dispose of a
silly cavil, that the brief chapter with which the book of
Deuteronomy closes, and which contains an account of
the death and burial of Moses, was doubtless written by
Joshua, and belongs rather to the book of Joshua than
to that of Deuteronomy, the first mentioned of these
books being bat a continuation of the history given us
in the last mentioned.
In the book of Judges, which continues the history of
Israel for a period of three hundred years from the date
at which the book of Joshua closes, we read: "Now
these are the nations which the Lord left, ... to prove
Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken
unto the commandments of the Lord, which He com-
manded their fathers hj the hand of Moses.'' ^ (Judges
3 : 1-4.)
The 105th and 106th Psalms contain a brief recapitu-
lation of the chief incidents in the history of Israel, as
given in the Pentateuch, cited as grounds of thanksgiv-
ing to God on the paxt of Israel. The 90th Psalm bears
the title of, "A Prayer of Moses the Man of God.''
" The correctness of the title which ascribes this psalm
to Moses is confirmed by its unique simplicity and
grandeur ; its appropriateness to his time and circum-
stances ; its resemblance to the law in urging the con-
nection between sin and death ; its similarity of diction
to the poetic portions of the Pentateuch, without the
162 NATURE AND EEVELATION.
slightest trace of imitation or quotation ; its marked un-
likeness to the Psalms of David, and still more to those
of later date ; and, finally, the proved impossibility of
plausibly assigning it to any other age or author."
(J. A. Alexander.)
• David's parting charge to Solomon is in the words :
' ^ 1 go the way of all the earth : be thou strong there-
fore, and show thyself a man ; and keep the charge of
the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His
statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and
His testimonies, as it is written in the law of MoseSj
that thou may est prosper in all that thou doest, and
whithersoever thou turnest thyself." (1 Kings 2 : 2, 3.)
In his prayer at the dedication of the Temple, Solomon
urges as a reason why God should hear the prayers of
Israel : ^' For thou didst sci^arate them from among all
the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou
spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant^ when thou
broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord our God ;"
and he follows the prayer with a blessing of the people,
in the words: ''Blessed be the Lord, that hath given
rest unto His people Israel, according to all that He
promised : there hath not failed one word of all His good
promise, which He promised by the hand of Moses His
servanty (1 Kings 8 : 53, 56.)
In the account of the reformation effected in the days
of King Hezekiah, in whose reign the prophet Isaiah
lived and prophesied, we read : ''He removed the high
places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves,
and brake in pieces the serpent that Moses had made :
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn in-
cense to it : and called it Nehushtan." (2 Kings 18 : 4.)
Of Moses making this brazen serpent we have an account
in ISTumbers 21 ; 8, 9.
THE PENTATEUCH. 163
At a later date, and shortly before tlie Captivity in
Babylon, King Josiah, in giving direction for observing
the passover, says : ''So kill the passover, and sanctify
yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do
according to the word of the Lord by the hand of MosesJ^^
And in the account of the observance of that passover
we read : " And they removed the burnt-offerings, that
they might give according to the divisions of the families
of the people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in
the looh of Moms:' (2 Chron. 35 : 6, 12.)
2. As instances of the recognition of the Mosaic author-
ship of the Pentateuch and its historic credibility by the
prophets, take tlie following — viz.:
By Isaiah, who lived before the Captivity : " Then
he remembered the days of old. Hoses, and his people,
saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea
with the shepherd of his flock ? where is he that put
his Holy Spirit within him ? That led them by the
right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the
waters before them, to make himself an everlasting
name." (Isaiah 63 : 11, 12.)
By Daniel, who lived during the Captivity: ''Yea,
all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing,
that they might not obey thy voice ; therefore the curse
is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the
law of Moses the servant of God, because we have
sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words,
which he spake against us, and against our judges that
judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil : for under
the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done
upon Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses,
all this evil is come upon us." (Dan. 9 : 11-13.)
By Malachi, who lived after the restoration, and whose
prophecy closes the Old Testament Scriptures : " Re-
164 NATURE AND REVELATION.
member ye the law of Moses my servant, wliicli I com-
manded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the
statutes and judgments." (Mai. 4 : 4.)
3. Turning now to the New Testament, we have the
testimony of the apostles in such words as these — viz. :
Of John : ^^ The law was given l)y Moses.'''' (John
1 : ir.)
Of Philip : '' And Philip iindeth Nathan ael, and saith
unto him. We have found him, of whom Moses in the
law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the
son of Joseph." (John 1 : 45.)
Of James : '' And after they had held their peace,
James answered, saying : For Moses of old time hath in
every city them that preach him, being read in the
synagogues every Sabbath day." (Acts 15 : 21.)
Of Jude, or ''Judas, not Iscariot," as he is called :
''Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about
them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornica-
tion, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. . . .
Woe unto them ! for they have gone in the way of Cain,
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,
and perished in the gainsaying of Core." (Jude 7, 11.)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Cain and Balaam,
and Core or Korali, is found in the Pentateuch alone.
Of Peter : " And Peter answered unto the people :
. . . Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall
the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever
he shall say unto you." (Acts 3 : 22.) Quoted from
Dent. 18 : 15 :
Of Paul : " Nevertheless death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
simih'tude of Adam's transgression." (Rom. 5 : 14.)
THE PENTA.TEUCH. 165
''Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea, and were all haptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in tlie sea." (1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2.)
'' Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do
these also resist the truth. " (2 Tim. 3 : 8. ) The Epistle
to the Hebrews, generally ascribed to Paul as its author,
is, in large measure, a commentary on the law of Moses,
and in all it says of Abraham, and Melchisedec, and
Aaron, and of the patriarchs in its illustration of the
nature of faitli, in ch. 11, it takes for granted the truth
of the history contained in the Pentateuch.
4. The testimony of our Lord to the Mosaic author-
ship of the Pentateuch, and its credibility as history, is
oft repeated and explicit. As specimens of this testi-
mony, take the following — viz. :
'' Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father :
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye
trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have be-
lieved me : for he wrote of me. But if ye beheve not
his writings, how shall ye believe my words ?" (John
5 : 45-47.)
" They said therefore unto Him, What sign showest
Thou then, that we may see, and believe Thee ? what
dost Thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in the
desert ; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven
to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Yerily, verily, I say
unto you, Moses gave you not that hread from heaven ;
but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."
(John'e : 30, 32.)
'' Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you
keepeth the law ? "Why go ye about to kill me ? The
people answered and said, Thou hast a devil : who goeth
about to kill Thee ? Jesus answered and said unto them,
166 NATURE AND REVELATION.
1 have done one good work, and je all marvel. Moses
therefore gave nnto you circumcision (not because it is
of Moses, but of the fathers) ; and ye on the Sabbath
day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day
receive circumcision, that the law of Hoses should not
be broken ; are ye angry at me, because I have made a
man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" (John
7 : 19-23.)
"When our Lord had healed a leper He '' said unto
him. See thou tell no man ; but go thy way, show thyself
to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded^
for a testimony unto them." (Matt. 8 ; 4.) For the law
referred to see Lev. 13 and 16.
'' JSTow that the dead are raised, even Moses shoioed at
the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For He is
not a God of the dead, but of the living. " (Luke 20 : 37,
38.)
To His two sorrowing disciples at Emmaus our Lord
said : '' O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that
the prophets have spoken : ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into His glory ? And
legiiming at Moses and all the prophets. He expounded
unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
Himself.'^ (Luke 24 : 25-27.)
'' And He said unto them" (His apostles), '^ These are
the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were writ-
ten in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24 : 44.)
Such is the explicit testimony of prophets and apostles
and of our Lord Himself, to the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch and to its credibility, besides passages al-
most innumerable to be found throughout the Old and
THE PEXTATEUCH. 167
New Testaments, in wliicli, by fair implication, its
autlienticitj and credibility are taken for granted. The
evidence of this kind for Caesar's anthorsliip of '^ The
Gallic Wars," and the credibility of that book, is not a
tithe of that there is for Moses' authorship) of '* the
Law," and its truth as history.
§ 60. ProjpJiets and Apostles Inspired ^ our Lord
Divine.
Thus far we have considered the testimony of proph-
ets and apostles, and of our Lord Himself, as the testi-
mony of ordinary men. But in forming a judgment
respecting questions of the kind before us, in the case
of other books, we always take into account the character
and probable means of information of the witnesses. It
is a dictate of common-sense that witnesses should be
weighed as well as counted. Prophets and apostles
claim to have written under inspiration of God ; and our
Lord claims to be truly and properly divine, to be God
as well as man ; and these facts must be taken into ac-
count if we would deal with the Pentateuch '^ just as we
would deal with any other ancient book."
"What do we mean by '' inspiration of God "? Let us
see if we can get from the Scriptures themselves a satis-
factory definition of the term ; and this is the more
necessary, because many writers, especially the advocates
of the higher criticism, have jaggled with the term, until
in their hands it has come to mean anything or nothing,
as best snits their purpose.
The expression is used in 2 Tim. 3:6: ^' All Script-
ure is given by inspiration of God,'''' and its meaning
is determined by such passages as the following — viz. ;
*' God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these
168 NATURE AXD HEYELATIOK.
last days spoken unto us by His Son.*' (Heb. 1 : 1, 2.)
*' When ye received the word of God which ye heard
of lis, ye received it not as the w^oid of men, bnt, as it is
in truth, the word of God." (1 Thess. 2 : 13.) " For
the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man :
but holy men of God spake as they w^ere moved by the
Holy Ghost." (2 Pet. 1 : 21.) ''E"ow we have re-
ceived, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit wdiicli
is of God ; that we might know the things that are freely
given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teach eth, but wdiich the
Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual" (or, as Dr. Charles Hodge translates the last
clause: ^'joining sj)iritual things to spiritual words.")
(ICor. 2 :'l2, 13.)
With any fair interpretation, these passages cannot be
made to teach an inspiration less than : (1) That in the
Scriptures we have an errorless record of truth — a record
worthy to bear the name of the " Word of God ;" and
(2) that an errorless record of truth has been made under
the direct guidance and influence of God, the Holy
Ghost.
In this inspiration God the Spirit did not interfere
with the free and natural operation of the writer's own
mind, did not obliterate his characteristic peculiarities of
thought and diction. There is as marked a difference
in style between the historic book of Genesis and tlie
poetic book of Isaiah as between the writings of Thucy-
didesand those of Homer. And this is in perfect accord
wath wdiat experience teaches us of the operations of
this same Holy Spirit upon the human spirit in regenera-
tion and sanctification. Peter and John had characteris-
tic peculiarities of spirit as well as of body before their
regeneration ; they retained those peculiarities as long as
THE PEXTATEUCn. 169
tliey lived on earth, and I doubt not they will retain
them evermore : that in heaven, after the resurrection
of the body has made the work of redemption complete,
Peter will be Peter still, and John will be John.
Inspiration did not supersede the use of such means of
information as, in the providence of God, were within
the writer's reach. Thus Luke writes : " Forasmuch
as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a decla-
ration of those things which are most surely believed
among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which
from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of
the word ; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very firsts to write
unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou
mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been instructed." (Luke 1 : 1-L) It may be that
Moses, in writing the book of Genesis, made use of tradi-
tions current among his people, possibly of historic docu-
ments which had come down to him from former genera-
tions. But this much is fairly implied in his writings,
being a part of the Word of God, that when he did make
use of such information he was guided by God the
Spirit in the selection of the material used, separating
between the appropriate and inappropriate the true and
the false. Kothing less than this could make his writ-
ings worthy the title of '' The Word of God."
There are two questions which have furnished subject
for no little discussion in considering the matter under
examination — viz. : (1) Is the inspiration of Scripture
jjlenary f — i. e. , full, such as to make it an errorless
record on all points on which it speaks, and not in mat-
ters of doctrine and the essentials of the Christian faith
alone ? To this question I answer, Yes ; it is plenary.
The original autograph of the sacred writings was an
170 NATURE AND REVELATION.
errorless record, tliough errors may liave, and as a mat-
ter of fact unquestionably have, crept in in the process of
transmission from the writer's day to ours. (2) Is in-
spiration verhal f To this I answer, Not in the sense
wliich would make the writer a mere amanuensis, for then
w^ould uniformity in style of thought and expression
characterize the Scriptures throughout, from Genesis to
Revelations ; but it is verbal in such a sense as is implied
in Paul's words : "' which things also we speak, not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth ; joining spiritual things to spiritual
words" (1 Cor. 2 : 13) ; and in our Lord's argument for
the resurrection : " But as touching the resurrection of
the dead, have ye not read that which was s23oken unto
you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God is not the
God of the dead, but of the Kving." (Matt. 22 : 31, 32.)
Such is the doctrine of inspiration as plainly taught in
Scripture. Prophets and apostles claim to have written
under the influence of this inspiration — the inspiration of
God the Spirit. Our Lord claimed to be the Son of
God in such a sense that He could say : '' He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father.',' (John 14 : 9.) ^' I and
my Father are one. " (John 10 : 30.) And His whole life
and teaching abundantly confirmed this claim. Taking
into account now, as we w^ould "in the case of any
other ancient book,' ' the character of the v/itness, do I
go too far when I say that to the Christian the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch and its truth as history
are established as fully and firmly as it is possible for
testimony to establish such claims ; that it comes to us
sealed with the double seal of God the Spirit and God
the Son ?
The Pentateuch bears internal marks of having been
THE PENTATEUCH. 171
written by Moses and of being true history. To this
proposition I will now ask the reader's attention.
§ 61. The Literary Style of the Pentateuch.
It is largely on the ground of its literary style that the
higher critics reject the Mosaic authorship of the Penta-
teuch, Professor Robertson Smith contending that in
differences of style characteristic of different portions of
it we have evidence of the work of at least four different
authors in the book usually ascribed to Moses.
The argument on this ground, inasmuch as it is made
up largely of peculiarities of expression in the original
Hebrew of the Pentateuch, cannot be intelligibly pre-
sented in a popular form — certainly not in a form which
will place it within the reach of even the advanced
classes in our Sabbath-schools for whose use Dr. Toy
has written his '' History of the Religion of Israel."
For this reason it is, I presume, that Dr. Toy, \w his
book, gives us the conclusions to which his criticism has
led him, and says little or nothing of the reasons there-
for. For the same reason, instead of attempting to pre-
sent the literary arguments of the higher critics, I will ask
your attention to what Professor F. L. Patton, of Prince-
ton, an able scholar, and one of the first logicians of our
day and country, has written on the subject. In an
article published in the Presbyterian Review for April,
18S3, he writes :
" English readers are not unfamiliar with the precari-
ous nature of arguments based on style. Some of us
have not forgotten the discussion of the question whether
Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Stanley Leathes, himself a
Hebraist, makes admirable use of a controversy carried
on in tlie cohinms of the London Times respecting the
authorship of a poem, and says : ' If, some two hundred
172 XATURE A?TD REVELATIOX.
years after Milton's death, a number of educated English-
men, versed in the many known writings of Milton, can-
not agree about the authorship of a certain poem upon
internal evidence, are we to beheve that m-eat weidit
should be attached to the assertion of a German critic
who, some twenty-five centuries after the death of a
Hebrew prophet, declares positively, upon internal evi-
dence alone (for here there is no handwriting to help us),
that a series of poems are not by him ? ' He is here
speaking of what he calls ' the imaginary figment of a
second Isaiah,' but the illustration suits the question in
hand equally well.
" It would have been better for the theory of a four-
fold narrativ^e, so far as we are concerned, had Professor
Smith contented himself with the argumentuin ad
ignorantiam, and told us that this is a matter which no
one but a critic can understand ; for in attempting to
make us see the argument upon which criticism relies, he
has confirmed our scepticism. We may assume that in il-
lustrating differences of style between Exodus, Leviticus,
and Deuteronomy he would not choose the passages in
which it is least apparent ; indeed, when we read the
parallel passages in which he holds up this difference of
style to the gaze of eyes that are kindly supposed to be
unfamiliar with the Hebrew text, we take it for granted
that we have before us a crucial instance. As such we
have studied it according to our light ; and our conclu-
sion is, that, judging by the diiferences apparent in these
passages, the critics have most ungrudgingly obeyed the
law of parsimony when they assigned only four authors
to the Pentateuch. "Why not forty ? For we have no
hesitation in saying that by the same rule which gives
four authors and a redactor to the Pentateuch we will
undertake to show that four authors and as many redac-
THE PENTATEUCH. 173
tors were concerned in each of the articles written by
Professor Smith and Dr. Briggs.
'^ But let us listen to what specialists have to say upon
this subject. Professor Smith admits that ' literary
criticism, though a good and delicate tool, is subject to
special limitations in the case of Hebrew,' and that
' when carried beyond a certain point it arouses suspi -
cion. ' Professor Curtis tells us there is ' need of great
caution in accepting the analysis of the critics.' Dr.
Green regards the recent right-about-face as to the order
of the Elohist and Jehovist as ' a fresh demonstration of
the precarious and inconclusive nature of the entire j^roc-
ess of argument.' Stanley Leathes pronounces ' un-
satisfactory and unsound tlie results of criticism which
arise from the application of the Elohistic and Jehovistic
theory to the composition of the Pentateuch.' ' Imagi-
nary and unreasonably arbitrary,' says Dr. McCaul,
speakiug of the Elohistic question ; and Dr. Harold
Brown puts his estimate upon the theory that denies the
Mosaic authorship of Genesis when he says : ^ The
romance of modern criticism is as remarkable as its per-
verse ingenuity. ' ' '
§ 62. Incidental Confirmation.
In the case of historical writing, unexpected confirma-
tions of their incidental statements, by other writings of
admitted authority, properly have great weight in deter-
mining such questions as that before us. As instances of
this sort of confirmation of the authenticity and credi-
bility of the Pentateuch, take the following — viz. :
1. In Gen. -il : 14: we read : '' Then Pharaoh sent
and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of
the dungeon : and lie shaved himself^ and changed his
raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh." On this Ilengsten-
174 NATURE AND REVELATION.
berg remarks : '^ Even the most prejudiced mind in tins
incidental notice recognizes a purely Egyptian custom.
Herodotus mentions it among the distinguishing peculiari-
ties of the Egyptians, that they commonly were shaved,
but in mourning they allowed the beard to grow. The
sculptures also agree with this representation. " "So par-
ticular," says Wilkinson, " w^ere they on this point, that
to have neglected it was a subject of reproach and ridi-
cule ; and whenever they intended to convey the idea of
a man of low condition or a slovenly person, the artist
represented him with a beard. " ' ^ Although foreigners, "
says the same author, " who were brought to Egypt as
slaves had beards on their arrival in the country, we find
that as soon as they were employed in the service of this
civilized peoj^le they were obliged to conform to the
cleanly habits of their masters : their beards and head
were shaved, and they adopted a close cap." ('' Egypt
and the Books of Moses. ' ')
2. In Gen. 43 : 31-33 we read : " And he" (Josepli)
"washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself,
and said, Set on bread. And they set on for him by him-
self, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians,
which did eat with them, by themselves : because the
Egyptians might not eat bread w^ith the Hebrews ; for
that is an abomination unto the Egyptians. And they sat
before him." On this account Ilengstenberg remarks :
" Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians abstained from
all familiar intercourse with foreigners, since these were
unclean to them, especially because they slew and ate the
animals which were sacred among the Egyptians. There-
fore (since the Egyptians honor much the cow) no
Egyptian man or woman will kiss a Greek upon the
mouth. They also use no knife or fork or kettle of a
Greek, and will not eat the flesh of any clean beast if it
THE PENTATEUCH. 175
has been cut up with a Greek knife. The circumstance
that Joseph eats separately from the other Egyptians is
strictly in accordance with the great difference of rank
and the spirit of caste which prevailed among the
Egyptians."
^' It appears from v. 33 that the brothers of Joseph
sat before him at the table, while, according to patriarchal
practice, they were accustomed to recline. It appears
from the sculptures that the Egyptians also were in the
habit of sitting at table, although they had couches.
Sofas were used for sleeping. In a painting in Hosellini
each one of the guests sits upon a stool, which, in accord-
ance with the custom, took the place of the couch."
(" Egypt and the Books of Moses," pp. 37, 38.)
3. In his '^ Origin of I*^ations" Canon E-awlinson
writes : " What, then, has ethnographical science, fol-
lowing a strictly inductive method, and wholly freed
from all shackles of authority, concluded on the matter
before us ? A single passage from the greatest of modern
ethnologists will suffice to show."
*• There was a time," says Professor Max Miiller,
'^ when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the
Sclaves, the Greeks and Italians, the Persians and the
Hindoos were living together beneath the same roof,
separated from the Semitic and Turanian races." And
again : '^ There is not an English jury nowadays which,
after examining the hoary documents of language, would
reject the claim of a common descent and a legitimate
relationship between Hindoo, Greek, and Teuton."
Ethnological science, we see, regards it as morally cer-
tain, as proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the
chief races of modern Europe, the Celts, the Germans,
the Grceco-Italians, and the Sclaves, had a common origin
with the principal race of Western Asia, the Indo-Per-
176 K"ATUPtE AND llEVELATIOX.
sian. Now this result of advanced modern inductive
science — a result which it is one of the proudest boasts
of the nineteenth century to have arrived at — is almost
exactly that which Moses, writing fifteen hundred years
before the Christian era, laid down dogmatically as a
simple historical fact in Gen. 10 : 2." ('' Origin of
Kations," ^. 176.)
4. A very curious '' undesigned confirmation " of the
history contained in Genesis has lately been brought to
light. In his study of the pa23yri and inscriptions in the
tombs which especially concern the daily life and habits
of the Egyptians, Brugsch-Bey, one of the best informed
among the Egyptologists of the present day, has made
out what may be called an Egyptian ^' price-current " of
the days of Joseph. According to this, a slave sold for
$9.73, an ox for 31 cents, a goat for 7^-jy cents, a pair of
fowls for 1 cent, a razor for 3 J cents. (Osborn's " An-
cient Egypt," p. 82.) If we turn now to Gen. 37 : 28
we read : *' And " (they) '' sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites
for twenty pieces of silver : and they brought Joseph
into Egypt." The piece of silver was doubtless the
silver shekel, worth, at that time, according to best
authority, a little less than fifty cents of our money,
the twent}^ pieces of silver corresponding almost exactly
to the $9.73 of the old Egyptian '' j)rice-current. "
§ 63. The Character of the Communications.
The character of the communications and the style of
thought and reasoning of a book often furnish important
evidence respecting its age and authorship.
The Pentateuch contains a communication, commonly
spoken of as the ''moral law " or ''Ten Command-
ments," which the author claims to have received directly
from God ; first, as spoken in audible words from the
THE PEiTTATEUCH. 177
top of Sinai, and afterward on '^ two tables of stone,
written with the finger of God." According to this
claim, God is the author of this law in a very peculiar
sense. Does the nature and style of this law correspond
to such a claim ?
In a little tract published by the American Tract
Society many years ago, an eminent lawyer gives the
following brief summary of the moral law, with his own
remarks thereon: '^ I have been looking," writes he,
*' into the nature of that law. I have been trying to see
Avhether 1 can add anything to it or take anything from
it, so as to make it better. 1 cannot. It is perfect.
" The first commandment directs us to make the
Creator the object of our supreme love and reverence.
This is right. If lie be our Creator, Preserver, and
Supreme Benefactor, we ought to treat Him, and none
other, as such.
** The second forbids idolatry. That certainly is right.
'^ The third forbids profaneness.
'^ The fourth finds a time for religious worship. If
there be a God, He ought surely to be worshipped. It is
suitable that there should be an outward homage, sig-
nificant of our inward regard. If God is to be w^or-
shipped, it is proper that some time should be set apart
for that purpose, when all may worship Him harmoni-
ously and without interruption. One day in seven is
certainly not too much, and I do not know that it is too
little.
^' The fifth defines the peculiar duties arising from the
family relations.
'^ Injuries to our neighbor are then classified by the
moral law. They are divided into offences against life,
chastity, property, and character. And, applying a legal
idra, I notice that tlie greatest offence in each class is
178 NATURE A:N"D EEVELATIOl!^.
expressly forbidden. Thus, tlie greatest injury to life
is murder ; to chastity, adultery ; to property, theft ; to
character, perjury, l^ow, the greater oiience must in-
clude the less of the same kind. Murder must include
every injury to life ; adultery, every injury to purity,
and so of the rest. And the moral code is closed and
perfected by a command forbidding every improper
desire in re^^ard to our nei,g:hbor.
'^ Where did Moses get that law ? I have read his-
tory. The Egyptian and adjacent nations were idolaters ;
so were the Greeks and Romans ; and the wisest and best
Greeks or Romans never gave a code of morals like this.
"Where did Moses get this law, which surpasses the wisdom
and philosophy of the most enlightened age ? He lived
at a period comparatively barbarous, but he has given a
law in which the learning and sagacity of all subsequent
time can detect no flaw. Where did he get it ? He
could not have soared so high above his age as to have
devised it himself. It must have come from heaven.'''^
And this is just what is affirmed respecting it in the Pen-
tateuch.
j As Rousseau, after a careful study of the character of
Christ Jesus as set forth in the Gospel, said, ''It is
more inconceivable that a number of men should a^ree
to write such a history than that one should furnish the
subject of it," so we may say respecting the Ten Com-
mandments, It is more inconceivable that any man of the
age and people among whom they first appeared should
have written them than that they were " written on two
tables of stone, by the linger of God," as is affirmed in
• the Pentateuch.
In our examination of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch and its credibility, we have now apphed the
tests by which similar questions respecting other ancient
THE PEITTATEUCH. 179
books — '^ Csesars Gallic Wars," for example — are deter-
mined ; and, in view of all the facts brought out, 1 see
not how any thonghtful man can avoid the conclusion
that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, that it is
true history, and, as it claims, written under inspiration
of God.
§ 64. The Dwine Element in the Authorship of the
Pentateuch Ignored hy the Higher Critics.
Professor Pobertson Smith writes : '' We must not be
afraid of the human side of Scripture. It is from that
side alone that scholarship can get at any hibliccd ques-
tion^ And again : '' The first condition of a sound
understanding of Scripture is to give full recognition to
the human side, to master the whole situation and char-
acter and feelings of each human interlocutor who has a
part in the drama of revelation. I^ay^ the whole husi-
ness of scholarly exegesis lies within this human side.''''
C The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," Lecture
I.) There is a sense in which these declarations of Pro-
fessor Robertson Smith may be true ; but in the sense
which he puts upon them in his subsequent critical ex-
amination of the Scriptures — i.e.^ that we must deal with
them as if they were simply a human production, like
any other ancient book — they are not true.
The Scriptures claim both a divine and a human
agency in their production — '' Holy men of God spake"
— there is the human agency ; ^' as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost" (1 Pet. 21 ; 21)— there is the divine
agency. There is a true sense in which the Bible is a
God -made book, and Ave cannot deal fairly with it, judge
of it just as we would judge of any other ancient book,
if we ignore this fact ; and a disreii:ard of it must inevit-
ably lead us into error.
^»'
180 NATURE AND REVELATION.
In our day tlie art of making artificial, man-made
flowers lias been carried to great perfection, especially in
the city of Paris — to such perfection, that it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish, at a little distance, between them
and the natural, God-made flowers grown in our gar-
dens. If we ignore this distinction, and treat all flowers
as man-made, it w^ill lead to the greatest absurdities.
For example, take to the best artificial rose-maker in
Paris a glass of water and a handful of charcoal, and ask
her to make you a rose of them ; w^ill she be much to
blame if she thinks you crazy ? And yet that is the
very material out of which the most beautiful God-made
rose has been constructed. Or suppose I take a natural
rose, one that has grown in my garden, and attempt to
answer the question, "Where was it produced ? It is
very perfect in its form and structure, much more so
than the roses made in New York or Philadelphia ; it
must have been made in Paris. And this is the only
rational conclusion to which I can come if all roses are
artificial, man-made.
Not one whit more reasonable than tliis is the conclu-
sion of the higher critics from Gen. 36 : 31 : ^' And
these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before tliere reigned any king over the children of
Israel," that this portion of Genesis, at the least, must
liave been written after the days of Saul, the first king
of Israel. The inference is reasonable if the book has
no divine element in its authorship ; but if it has such
an element, if in a true sense of the expression the book
is God-made, then this passage mnst l)e regarded as
nothing more than an instance of predictive prophecy,
and is worthy of no more attention in fixing the date of
the book than Gen. 35 : 11 — '^ And God said unto him,
I am God Almighty : be fruitful and multiply ; a nation
THE PENTATEUCH. 181
and a company of nations shall be of tliee, and kings
shall come out of thy loins."
§ 65. The Truth of the Hypothesis of E'volution As-
sumed hy the Higher Critics.
The higher critics utterly ignore the divine agency in
man's progress in civilization and religion, and assume
that all such progress has been made throngh the agency
of human reason alone, and by a regular process of de-
velopment or evolution. Dr. Toy writes : '^ The facts
that have come to our knowledge make it probable that
all the ancient or national religions originated in the
same way, and grew according to the same laws. The
differences between them are the differences between the
peoples to whom they belong. Up to a certain point in
their development they are all alike, and then they begin
to show their local peculiarities. Of the earliest stage of
Israel's religion, the fetishistic, we know almost noth-
ing ; when we find them in Canaan they are polytheist,
like their neighbors — that is, they have separated the
Deity from the objects of nature, and regard these last
as symbols of the Godhead. Thus much of their re-
ligious career belongs to the general history of ancient
religions." (''History of the Keligion of Israel,"
p. 148.)
In common with the advocates of the theory of the
evolution of man from the brute, Dr. Toy here assumes
that man, as man, began his course upon tlie earth as the
most ignorant, debased, and superstitious savage ; and
gradually, by his own efforts continued through ages,
worked out a civilization and a religion for himself ;
that God, having created man — if, indeed. He did create
him, a pitiable troglodyte, like the Digger Indians of the
West — left him to work out his destiny as best he could ;
182 NATURE AND REVELATION.
and anything inconsistent with this monstrous hypothesis
he treats as irrational and unworthy of credit.
In irreconcilable opposition to all such assumptions as
this, the Bible tells us that '' God said, Let us make man
in our own image, after our likeness : and let them have
dominion over the iish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God created created He him ; male and female created He
them." (Gen. 1 : 26, 27.) " Thou madest him" (man)
^' a little lower than tlie angels, and liast crowned him vutli
glory and honor. Thou madest him to liave dominion
over the work of thy hands." (Fs. 8 : 6, 6.) CiviHzed
man '' has dominion over the work of God's hands" to-
day — over the steam which drives our machinery and
the electricity which carries our messages around the
earth, not because he has grown into a giant mightier
than they, but because he has learned the fixed laws
which govern these agents, and through the oj)eration of
these laws compels them to do his bidding. Of any
other kind of dominion than this we know nothing ;
and so we conclude that when God ^' set man over the
work of His hands," He must have imparted to him a
knowledge of creation very far in advance of that pos-
sessed by the Digger Indians.
In consistency with this idea of man's condition at the
beginning, we read, in the tliird chapter of Genesis, of
the division of labor : '^ Abel was a keej)er of sheep, but
Cain was a tiller of the ground ;" of the building of cities :
*' And he builded a city, and called the city after the
name of his son Enoch ;" of mechanics and metallurgists :
'^ Tubal Cain was an instructor of every artilicer in brass
and iron ;" and of music and musical instruments :
THE PENTATEUCH. 183
^' Jiibal was tlie father of all siicli as handle the harp and
the organ" — all of tliem marks of an advanced civiliza-
tion. We read also of Abel and Cain as engaging in
the pnblic worship of God : the one, by bloody sacrifice,
which he '^ offered in faith" (Ileb. 11 : 4), the repre-
sentative of the religion of the Gospel ; the other, by
his offering of the fruit of the ground, the representative
of " natural religion" — the two great phases of religious
thought among the civilized peoples of to-day. From
this condition of advanced civilization the Scriptures
teach us that man sank from generation to generation,
through the degrading influence of sin, until Christianity,
in its form of world-wide activity, commenced its re-
claiming work. On many tribes and peoples Christian-
ity has not yet been brought to bear, and they are the
troglodytes and cannibals of to-day in '' the paleolithic
or old Stone Age" of their existence. Among others it
has long been at work — e. g., the peoples of Great Britain
and America, and they lead the van of civilization, and
dominate the world.
With this scriptural idea of the course of civilization,
the facts of authentic history and the monuments of
antiquity all agree. The oldest civilization of whicli we
can learn anything w^ith certainty outside the records of
Scripture is the Egyptian ; and among the monuments
of this Egyptian civilization the grandest are confessedly
the oldest ; and the oldest form of Egypt's religion is
the purest. So it is w^itli the Assyrian and Indian civili-
zations, the written and monumental records of which
have lately been disentombed. On our western conti-
nent the civilization of the empire of the Incas, in South
America, was far in advance of that of their descendants
in our time. The mouldering temples of Central
America and the rock-cities of New Mexico tell the
184 ATUKE AN"D REVELATION".
same story. Standing on the lieiglit of our modern
civilization, and looking awaj into the long-passed, the
farthest off of the objects distinctly seen are the pyramids
and temples of Egypt ; and then the palaces and great
cities of the valley of the Euphrates ; and then the rock-
hewn tem23les and old pagodas of India and China — all
telling, not of savage man, working up through sheer
force of intellect from savagery to civilization, but of
civilized man sinking lower and lower from generation
to generation ; all utterly inconsistent with the assump-
tion of the higher critics ; all confirming the simple story
of the Bible.
^ QQ. Conclusion.
Returning now to the question with which we started,
and which was then remitted to a future sta^fe of the
discussion — What is the '' higher criticism "? 1 answer,
It is a system of '^ destructive criticism," false in some
of the most important and fundamental of its assump-
tions, partial and unfair in its application of sound
criteria of judgment to questions concerning the author-
ship and credibility of the several parts of the Old Tes-
tament Scriptures, especially the Pentateuch, and unre-
liable in its methods, even wli^ere those methods are least
open to objection.
Carried out to its legitimate results, as it is in Dr.
Toy's '' History of the Religion of Israel " :
1. It taliGs away from us the Bihle as ^' the Word
of God^'''' though Dr. Toy would doubtless repudiate
such a conclusion. But how can a j^lain man look upon
a book as "" The Word of God," which is but a mass of
fables and falsehoods? — e.g.^ a book which holds up
Abraham as "the father of the faithful" and "the
friend of God," when, in fact, he was but a savage
fetich- worshipper ; and this he must have been if Israel
THE PP:NTATEUCn. 185
did not emerge from fetichism until their settlement in
Canaan ; a book wliicli tells ns of Moses as the man by
whom '^ the law was given " at Sinai, when, in fact, it
is doubtful if Moses was ever at Sinai, and the law was
not written until a thousand years after Moses died, and
then was written out by some old priest or prophet, and
palmed upon the people under the false pretence that it
was Moses' work, in order to give it authority in Israel.
2. It tctkes from %is Christianity as a supernatural
religion revealed hy God^ though Dr. Toy would prob-
ably repudiate this conclusion also. But how can it be
avoided if the religion of Israel — substantially the Chris-
tianity of Great Britain and America to-day — like
Buddhism and Confucianism, is but one of the ^' national
religions, wliicli all originated in the same way, and all
grew according to the same laws" ?
" Let no man deceive you with vain words." (Eph.
5:6.) It is the Gospel of Christ, our holy religion,
whicli is in controversy. The '^ higher criticism," in its
practical development in our day, is but an attack " within
the walls," just as the atheism of Hegel and Ingersoll is
an attack from without. We need not, we do not, fear
the result. We have the Master's assurance that His
Church, with all that is precious in the Gospel which it
enshrines, 'Ms built upon a rock, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it."
YL
PEOYIDENCE AND PEAYER.
^ 67. A Statement of Pi'ofessor Huxley.
''The history of every science," writes Professor
Huxley, ''is but the history of the ehmination of the
notion of creative or other interference with the natural
order of the phenomena which are the subject-matter of
that science. When astronomy was young ' the morn-
ing stars sang together for joy,' and all the planets were
guided in their courses by celestial hands. Now the
harmony of the stars has resolved itself into gravitation
according to the inverse squares of the distances, and the
orbits of the planets are deducible from the laws of forces
which allow a schoolboy's stone to break a w^indow.
The lightning w\ns the angel of the Lord, but it has
pleased Providence in these modern times tliat science
should make it the humble messenger of man, and we
know that every flash which shimmers above the horizon
on a summer evening is determined by ascertainable con-
ditions, and that its direction and brightness might, if
our knowledge of these were great enough, have been
calculated.
" The solvency of great mercantile companies rests on
the validity of the laws which have been ascertained to
govern the seeming irregularity of that human life which
the moralist bewails as the most uncertain of things ;
plague, pestilence, and famine are admitted by all but
fools to be the natural results of causes, for the most
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 187
part, fully within Imman control, and not the unavoid-
able tortures inflicted by wratliful Omnipotence upon His
helpless handiwork.
^' Harmonious order governing eternally continuous
progress, the web and w^oof of matter and force inter-
twining by slow degrees, without a broken thread, that
veil which lies between us and the Infinite, that universe
which alone we know and can know, such is the picture
which science draws of the world ; and in proportion as
any part of that picture is in unison with the rest, so
may we feel sure that it is rightly painted." (" Lay
Sermons," pp. 282, 283.)
In the above-quoted extract from Huxley's " Lay Ser-
mons " we have a statement (1) of the practical effect of
the progress of science upon man's conceptions of nature ;
and (2) a picture of our cosmos — ^. e., '"' the world as a
beautiful system," such as atheistic materialism would
fain have us believe them to be, from the pen of one
competent, if any man is, to do his subjects justice.
§ 68. J^ect of Modern Science on Man^s Conception of
Nature.
It is undoubtedly true that many phenomena which
*' in the youth and imperfection of science " men were
unable to explain — i.e.., to trace to the operation of some
general law, and which, on that account, they ascribed
to the immediate interposition of a being above matter,
and ruling over it — the being whose existence Huxley
acknowledges under the titles of "Providence," "the
Infinite," in the progress of science have been explained.
This must, of necessity, be the case ; for the progress of
science consists essentially in our becoming more and
more fully accpiainted with the laws and properties of
matter. Yet is it true that in our day there is a vastly
iSS MATURE AND REYELATIOX.
greater number of phenomena whicli thouglitfiil men,
familiar with all that science can teach them respecting
the natnre and laws of matter, feel constrained to ascribe
to the agency of a supermaterial power, call it Provi-
dence, or the Infinite, or what yon will, than there was
'^ in the youth and imperfection of science."
In entertaining this belief , there is no ^interference
with the natural order of phenomena" necessarily im-
plied unless we give to the term nature a narrow, un-
scientific definition, which will exclude the mind of man,
and, indeed, the lesser minds of all living things, as well
as God Himself, from nature. Onr cosmos is a com-
plicated machine, but, at the same time, it is something
more than a mere machine. Man is "wonderfully
made," but at the same time he is something more than
" the cunningest of nature's clocks." Nothing is more
certain than that there are forces at work around us other
than the forces inherent in matter, and forces often
mightier than they.
§ 69. Huxley^ s Picture of our Cosmos Incomjylete.
It is undoubtedly true that law reigns throughout the
universe; that "matter and force," in so far as the
forces inherent in matter are concerned, are subject to
law, and hence that the phenomena resulting there-
from, where we have learned the law, may be made the
subject of calculation. This is true in cases such as the
operation of gravity on the planetary bodies, where we
have to deal with a definite force and a definite bodv :
and also in cases such as the average length of human
life, where we have to deal with a number of results,
each by itself, in so far as we can ascertain, most uncer-
tain. As Professor Iluxley says, " The solvency of
great mercantile companies ' ' — our life-insurance organi-
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 189
zations — ^^ rest upon the validity of the laws which have
been ascertained to govern the seeming irregularities of
that human life which the moralist bewails as the most
uncertain of things." In both instances law governs,
but laws very different in their kind ; the one, a definite
law of force ; the other, the law of averages, or, as it is
more commonly called, the law of probabilities.
^' The reign of law " throughout our cosmos is wide-
spread — universal if you please — but it is very far from
justifying the belief that it is a mere machine, or the
conclusions of fatalism. The picture which true science,
taking account of all the elements in the complex problem
under examination, gives us is not the picture described
in Huxley's words — " Harmonious order governing eter-
nally continuous progress, the web and woof of matter
and force, interweaving by slow degrees, without a broken
thread, that veil which lies between us and the lufinite,
that universe which alone we know and can know." It
is in a very different sense from that in which we use
the term QtiacMne when speaking of man's handiwork,
we must use it when we apply it to the world in which
we live and of which we form a part.
A true picture of our world is made up of hills and
valleys, rivers and deserts, giant oaks and beautiful lilies,
and living animals in great variety of form and size ;
but along with these, and just as real as they, are every-
where mingled cities and cultivated fields, palaces and
hovels, ships and railroad trains, statues and paintings,
and all the vast variety of ^vorks of art which minister
to man's tastes and necessities. The description which
science gives of our world must take account of forces
other than those imminent in lifeless matter, such as
gravitation and heat — forces which have originated with
intelhgent living beings — e.(j.^ the forces which have
190 NATURE AND REVELATION.
transformed the oak into a ship or raih'oad car, and then
direct its movements with reference to the accomplish-
ment of a certain definite j^urpose. Living animals be-
long to the j)icture just as truly as lifeless matter. The
free will-power of intelligent man is just as real a force
in nature as gravitation and heat, and in the actual
course of events an equally effective force.
Let us examine a particular instance of the operation
of this free will-power of intelligent man, that we may
see how it works without any conflict with that " reign
of law " which is maintained in the material world. A
merchant wishes to transport a cargo of cotton from this
country to Great Britain, making use of the wind as a
motive power in crossing the ocean. Did the wind blow
steadily in the direction in which his vessel must sail, the
problem would be a very simple one. All he would
need to do would be to raise a sail and commit his vessel
to the conduct of the winds. But, in fact, experience
tells him that a wind blowing steadily in the direction ia
which he wishes his vessel to sail, and for the length of
time required by his contemplated voyage, is not to be
expected. Did he simply raise a sail, variable as the
winds are, his ship would be as likely to be driven to
South America or wrecked on some desert island as to
reach Great Britain. What shall he do ? He has learned
the law of " the composition and resolution of forces,"
and that this law governs the operation of the wind-force
he desires to make use of. He therefore trims his sails
in obedience to this law, and so the winds from almost
every quarter are made to propel his vessel in the one
direction which he has selected. In substantially the
same way it is that all the forces inherent in matter are
made subject to man's control. By selecting his instru-
ments and shaping his course in conformity to the laws
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 191
wliicli govern the operation of these forces, free, intelli-
gent man compels them '' to do his bidding." Propose
to the ignorant savage to rend the rocky monntain cliff
to pieces or to send a message across the Atlantic in a
few seconds of time, and he might well ask: " x\m I
God, that I should do this thing?" But the skilful
engineer, acquainted with the explosive power of
dynamite and the swift motion of electricity, and know-
ing the laws which govern the operation of these won-
derful agents, can so arrange matters that the desired
result shall be accomplished with very little expenditure
of force on his part. It is the glory of modern science
that it has subjected material forces to so great an extent
to man's will — in Huxley's own words, that it has made
'' the lightning the humble servant of man." Is it not,
then, utterly unscientific to exclude man from our idea
of nature, and strange that any thoughtful scientist
should consent to do so ?
§ YO. TliG True Conception of Nature,
In his '' Reign of Law " the Duke of Argyll writes :
'^ Does man, then, not belong to nature ? Is he above
it, or merely separated from it, or in violation of it ? Is
he supernatural ? If so, has he any difficulty in believ-
ino- in himself ? Of course not. Self-consciousness is
the one truth, in the light of which all other truths are
known, Cogito, ergo stem, or Yolo, ergo 5^^??^— this is
the one conclusion which we cannot doubt unless Eeason
disbelieves herself. Why, then, are the faculties of the
human mind and body not habitually included among
the " laws of nature" ? Because a fallacy is getting hold
upon us, from a want of definition, in the use of terms.
Nature is being used in the sense of physical nature.
It is conceived as containing nothing beyond the proper-
192 MATURE AND REVELATIOiJ".
ties of matter. Tims, the whole mental world in which
we ourselves live and move and have our being is ex-
cluded from it. But these selves of ours do belong to
nature. At all events, if we are ever to understand the
difficulties in the way of believing in the supernatural, we
must first keep clearly in view what we intend to under-
stand as included in the natural. Let us never forget,
then, that the agency of man is, of all others, the most
natural — the one with which w^e are most familiar — the
only one, in fact, we can be said even in any measure to
understand." (" Reign of Law," p. 7.)
The city of London, with its adjacent parks and culti-
vated fields, is to-day as truly a part of our cosmos as
the trackless forest and wide meadow which once occu-
pied the site of the modern city ; and all that makes
up the difference between the two — the magnificent
cathedrals, the splendid palaces, the comfortable homes,
the busy machine-shops, the thronged mercantile estab-
.lishments, the capacious warehouses, the carefully con-
structed bridges and docks, the vessels of every class,
propelled by wind or steam, that move about upon the
river, the loaded railroad trains that make their way
swiftly over the land, the cultivated field, laden with its
harvest of ripened grain, the garden blooming with flow-
ers brought from distant lands— these, and all else that
mark the advanced civilization of the London of to-day,
are directly traceable to the agency of intelligent man,
putting forth a free will-power, in harmony with the as-
certained laws governing the operation of material
forces, and so, subjecting them to his control, making
them to do his pleasure. Now, if all this has been done
in what we must consider a perfectly naticral way — if we
will give to the term natural its proper scientific sense
— and without producing even a jar in the woiking of
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 193
this vast, law-governed inacliine of the material world,
what possible objection can be urged to the belief in the
operation in our cosmos of a free will-]30wer mightier
than that of man, if the phenomena which present them-
selves for our study call for such a belief ? If the activi-
ties of man may not be excluded from a true conception
of nature, \A\j should the activities of a mighter than
man — even of God — be excluded or studiously ignored ?
Of the origin of matter no other rational account can
be given than that with which the oldest of extant cos-
mogonies opens : "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth." The extremest system of evo-
lution postulates the existence of " star dust" — a vast
mass of nebulous matter out of which onr cosmos has
been developed ; and this, as to its ultimate molecules,
possessed of a wonderful ''potentiality" (i. ^., inher-
ent power not actually exhibited. Imperial Dictionary).
Leaving out of account all that portion of this potentiality
which is the peculiar postulate of evolution, and taking
account of such characteristics only of these molecules —
atoms, as modern science regards them — as have been
ascertained to exist — e.g:, their absolute indestructibility,
the definite, unchangeable weight of each several kind
of atoms, their peculiar chemical aflinities, in consequence
of which they combine with each other according to cer-
tain fixed laws, their mathematically exact forms or
axes of j)olarity, causing them to crystallize with every
angle true to measure, are we not fully justified in say-
ing, with Sir John Herschel, that " atoms possess all the
characteristics of manufactured articles" ? And if manu-
factured articles, then a manufacturer ; and this manu-
facturer not nature, in the sense of law-governed mat-
ter, for matter is made up of these very atoms ; not
man, for atoms existed long before man, the latest
194 MATURE AND REVELATIO>T.
added element of our cosmos, came into being, but God,
the eternal, self -existent Author of all things. Here,
then, at the very beginning we are confronted with the
proof of the existence and working of a free will-power
in many particulars similar to that of man, but far
mighter than his.
If we pass now from the examination of atoms to that
of the more comj)lex structures of plants and animals
which everywhere surround us, we will be more deeply
impressed with the idea that they are all '^ manufactured
articles ;' ' and this, whether we regard them as the
products of immediate creation or of an evolution which
is but ^' a mode of creation." Study the structure and
growth of a lily, for example. ISTote its changes from
the shrivelled, dark-colored seed to the living plant in
bloom, of which it has been truly said ^^ that Solomon,
in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these ;" and
consider the fact that through the intervention of the
simplest of mechanisms, in so far as we can see, this
flower in all its perfection of form, its beauty of color,
its inimitable markings, and its sweet perfume, has been
made out of the rotting remains of some previously
existing plant, with the addition of a little water and
air — a work which after years of study man cannot
understand, much less imitate, and again we find our-
selves confronted with what we must consider the work
of God — the eternal, self-existent Author of all things.
In the rudely chipped implements of the paleolithic
age the archaeologist discerns the handiwork of intelligent
man, and hence infers the existence and activity of man
at the time these implements were made ; and no one
questions the correctness of his inferences. How, then,
can we look upon atoms, far more curiously constructed,
or the more complex structures presented in plants and
PROVIDEI^CE AND PRAYER. 195
animals — even the rudimentary organisms which Darwin
starts with — and consistently question the proof they
furnish of the existence and activity of an intelligent
agent, mightier than man, when they were made ?
§ Yl. Providence,
When such a conclusion is reached, the question at
once arises. If such was God's relation to our cosmos in
the beginning, what is it to-day ? Shall we say, God
made the world, and impressed upon it certain laws, en-
dowing matter with its properties, and rational beings
with the power of free agency, and having done this, He
leaves the world to the guidance of these general laws ;
that all things come to pass in virtue of the operation of
causes which He created and set in motion at the begin-
ning ? '' According to this view, God in nowise deter-
mines the effects of natural causes, nor controls the acts
of free agents. The reason that one season is propitious,
and the earth produces her fruits in abundance, and that
another is the reverse ; that one year pestilence sweeps
over the land, and another year is exempt from such
desolation ; that of two ships sailing from the same port,
the one is wrecked and the other has a prosperous
voyage ; that the Spanish Armada was dispersed by a
storm, and Protestant England saved from Papal domina-
tion ; that Cromwell and his companions were prevented
from sailing for America, which decided the fate of re-
ligious liberty in Great Britain — that all such events are
as they are must, according to this theory, be referred
to chance or the blind operation of natural causes. God
has nothing to do with them. He has abandoned the
world to the government of physical laws, and the affairs
of men to their own control." (Hodge's ^' Theology,"
vol. 1, p. 591.)
196 N^ATURE AKD REVELATIOIT.
This hypothesis, while it has not been without ad-
vocates in ancient as well as modern times, has never
been accepted bj the vast majority of thoughtful men.
A belief in the continued providential government of
the world by God, its Creator, is common to all forms of
religion which have obtained currency among men ; and
is as pronounced in the inscriptions of the Tigro-Eu-
phrates Yalley — which antiquaries are now deciphering
after a lapse of many centuries — as in the writings of
Christian authors of to-day. Dr. Charles Hodge has said
truly, this belief '' is the intuitive conviction of all men,
however inconsistent it may be with their philosophical
theories or with their professions." Professor Huxley
writes : '^ The lightning was the agent of the Lord, but
it has pleased Providence, in these modern times, that
science should make it the humble messenger of man."
Now, whether we regard this recognition of Providence
as governing the progress of science, as the expression
of an intelligent and definite belief on the part of Pro-
fessor Huxley himself, or as merely a form of expression
which he found current among men, and adopted in
order to make himself understood, it furnishes at once
an illustration and a proof of the truth of Dr. Hodge's
statement quoted above.
No one can study the records of the past and not be
constrained to feel that there is an order in events — a
philosophy of history. Of this Professor Huxley evi-
dently gets a glimpse when he writes : " Harmonious
order governing eternally continuous progress, the web
and woof of matter and force interweaving by slow
degrees, without a broken thread, that veil which lies
between us and the Infinite." The '^ web and woof of
matter interweaving continuous progress;" aye, and is
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 197
there no Weaver ? Shakespeare but gives expression to
the common thought of man when he writes :
" Let UR own,
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well,
When our deep plots do fail ; and that should teach us,
There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Eough-hew them how we will."
And one greater than Shakespeare teaches the doc-
trine of a Providence, at once general and particular, in
His words : ' ' Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing ?
and one of them shall not fall on the ground without
your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all
numbered." (Matt. 10 : 29, 30.)
§ 72. Professor TyndalV s Prayer-Test.
'^ Prayer and the answer of prayer are simply . . . the
preferring of a request upon the one side and compliance
with that request upon the other. Man applies, God
complies. Man asks a favor, God bestows it. These
are conceived to be the two terms of a real interchange
that takes place between the parties — the two terms of a
sequence, in fact, whereof the antecedent is a prayer
lifted up from earth, and the consequent is the fulfil-
ment of that prayer in virtue of a mandate from
heaven." (Chalmers's Works, vol. 2, p. 321.)
In immediate connection with the doctrine of God's
providence, the Scriptures teach the doctrine of effectual
praj^er, for which it lays a proper foundation. " The
theory of the universe which underlies the Bible, which
is everywhere assumed or asserted in the sacred volume,
which accords with our moral and religious nature, and
which, therefore, is the foundation of natural as well
as of revealed religion, is tliat God created all things by
the word of His power ; that He endowed His creatures
198 NATURE AND REVELATION.
with their properties or forces ; that He is everywhere
present in the universe, co-operating with and controlling
the operation of second causes on a scale commensurate
with His omnipresence and omnipotence, as we, in our
measure, co-operate with and control them within the
narrow range of our efficiency. According to this theory,
it is not irrational that we should pray for rain or fair
weather, for prosperous voyages or healthful seasons ;
or that we should feel gratitude for the innumerable
blessings which we receive from this ever-present, ever-
operating, and ever-watchful benefactor and Father.
Any theory of the universe which makes religion or
prayer irrational is self-evidently false, because it con-
tradicts the nature, the consciousness, and the irrepressible
convictions of men. As this control of God extends
over the minds of men, it is no less rational that we
should pray — as all men instinctively do pray — that He
would influence our own hearts and the hearts of others
for good, than that we should pray for health."
(Hodge's " Theology," vol. 3, p. 698.) '
In an article published in the Contemporary Remew
for July, 1872, Professor Tyndall, writing in the charac-
ter of a physician, makes, in .substance, the following
proposition — viz.: "We will submit the matter to the
test of calm experiment. Let the advocates of prayer
and ourselves select two wards of a hospital, each of
them full of sick persons, and agree upon tlie following
conditions : Both wards shall receive the same medical
attention, the same tender nursing, the same human
palliatives of the complaints of the sufferers ; but those
in one of them shall have, in addition, the supposed
benefit of prayer being offered for their recovery.
Those in the other shall be left without that supposed
benefit. If the former ward shall present a larger num-
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 199
ber of instances of restoration to health, or of more
speedy or more complete restoration than the latter,
something will have been done toward removing the ob-
jection that prayer is barren of results. At any rate,
inducement will then exist to repeat the experiment.
Every repetition, if accompanied by a similar result, will
go further toward the removal of the objection. At
length it will be removed entirely, for no doubt it will
be ultimately discovered not merely that prayer is avail-
able, but how much it is available both generally and in
particular cases." (Quoted from '' The Boyle Lectures
for 1873," pp. 113, 114.)
§ 73. TyiidaWs Test Practicalhj Worthless.
I cannot believe that Professor Tyndall, when he pro-
posed to test the efficacy of prayer in healing diseases,
used the word prayer in its low, heathen sense of the
mere repetition of or form of words — an incantation, a
charm. He must have understood it to be, at the least, an
honest expression of the heart's desire of the petitioner.
If he did not, his proposition is an evasion and not a test
of the truth of the Christian's faith. No Christian be-
lieves in the efficacy of an incantation. Taking this to
be his meaning, 1 remark, his test is worthless, and this
for two reasons — viz, :
1. The men in the ward of the hospital for whom no
prayer is to be made, w^hose recovery is in no way to be
influenced by prayer, may pray for themselves ; and
should they find themselves gradually growing worse,
some of them, undoubtedly, will do so. In times of dis-
tress and danger most men instinctively turn to prayer.
The Scriptures give us the story of a threatened ship-
wreck in the words: '' Eut the Lord sent out a great
wind into the sea, and there w^as a mighty tempest in the
200 NATURE AXD REVELATION.
sea, so that the ship was like to be broken. Then the
mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god,
and cast forth the wares in the ship into the sea, to lighten
it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of
the ship ; and he lay, and was fast asleep. So the ship-
master came to him, and said unto him, What meanest
thou, O sleeper ? arise, call upon thy God, if so be
that God will think upon us, that we perish not."
(Jonah 1 : 4-6.) The picture here presented us w^ill be
recognized by all as true to nature. The incident related
has been substantially repeated a thousand times in
every age and upon every sea. Men who, in quiet
waters or in health, live without prayer will call ear-
nestly upon God in a storm or in the ward of an hos-
pital w^hen death threatens and friends forsake them.
2. Should the attempt to apply this test be made, the
experiment in progress w^ill be either unknown, or it will
be known to the community at large. If it be unknown,
as Christians are accustomed to pray in their public as-
semblies and in their closets also for the sick and the
afflicted, how can we shut out the influence of the many
prayers thus offered from the ward of the hospital from
which all influence of prayer 'is to be exckided, if this
test is to be of any real value in setthng the question in
dispute ? But, on the other hand, if the trial of the ex-
periment was generally known, would not this knowl-
edge awaken a sympathy on behalf of the sufferers in
the hearts of good and kind men and women, which
would lead them to j^ray with especial earnestness for
those w^liom this experiment was seeking to cut off" from
all influence of prayer ? If prayer l)e, indeed, an efficient
agent in healing disease — and the great l)ody of Chris-
tian men and women in the world beh'eve that it is —
then the experiment must, in their estimation, be a very
PKOVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 201
cruel one ; and the knowledge that it was being tried
would lead the whole praying community to unite in
frustrating the attempt. " The voice of sympathizing
humanity would rise on behalf of these sufferers night
and day : and if special and specially earnest prayers
have any influence, the proposed design would be signally
counteracted. The ward which was not to be prayed for
would be in better condition than the other.'' In the
language of science, in the experiment proposed there
would be disturbing forces at work which, by no possi-
ble means, could we either exclude or control, and so
the result of the experiment would be worthless in so far
as the determination of the point in question is concerned.
§ 74. TyndalVs Test Imp7^aetiGahle.
The matter proposed to be tested is in question be-
tween scientists of Professor Tyndall's school and Chris-
tian men who believe in the Christian doctrine of effect-
ual prayer. The teaching of Scripture respecting the
nature of the prayer which is effectual is clearly set forth
by the Apostle James in terms making an application of
it to the very case under consideration. '' The prayer
of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him
up. . . . Pray one for another, that ye may be healed.
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth
much." (James 5 : 15, 16.) It is such prayer as is here
described, and such only, that must be used in the ex-
periment proposed. Just as Professor Tyndall would
doubtless insist that the drugs used should all be pure
and genuine, so has the Christian aright to insist that the
prayers used shall be the prayers which he believes to be
alone effectual.
1. Let the reader notice here that according to Script-
ure it is not the prayer of any and every man that will
20^ NATURE AND KEVELATION.
^^ save tlie sick," but the prayer of ''the righteous
man " — righteous in the Gospel sense of the term, right-
eous in the sense in which Elijah was a righteous man,
whose effectual prayer is cited in the immediate context
as proof of the doctrine taught. In the exercise of His
sovereignty God may answer tiie prayer of any man,
and sometimes, doubtless, does answer even the wicked
prayers of wicked men ; but He has bound Himself to
answer the prayers of righteous. Christian men alone.
2. It is not every prayer of the Christian man that
will '' save the sick," but '' the prayer of faith," '' the
effectual fervent prayer, ' ' the inwrought prayer, as the
Greek word, energoumenos, is more properly rendered.
"What the Apostle James means by an imor ought prayer
we may learn from Rom. 8 ; 26, 27 — " Likewise the
Spirit helpetli our infirmities : for vre know not what we
should pray for as w^e ought : but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth
what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh inter-
cession for the saints according to the will of God."
The prayer of Elijah '' that it might not rain, and it rained
not on the earth by the space of three years and six
months," is cited by the Apostle James as an instance
of such a prayer ; and respecting it Elijah himself says,
addressing himself to Jehovah : "1 have done all these
things at Thy word." (1 Kings 18 : 3G.)
3. Christians are, in the Scriptures, frequently spoken
of as '' children of God," as in Rom. 8 : 15, 16—'' For
ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear,
but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bearing witness with
our spirit, that we are the children of God ;" and sons
of God, as in Gal. 4 : 6 — " And because ye are sons,
PROVIDE]SrCE AND PRAYER. 203
God hath sent for the Spirit of His Son into yonr hearts,
crying Abba, Father." On the use of the double appel-
lation here, first the Aramaic Abba (father) and then
the Greek pater (father), Dr. Eadie remarks : " That en-
deared repetition characterizes a true child, as it clings to
the idea of fatherhood, and loves to dwell upon it."
Adoption among men is often a mere form ; the adop-
tion into the family of God is always a reality, the
adopted child always receiving '^ the spirit of adoption
whereby he cries Abba, Father." A Christian, then, is
one who has and cherishes a loving, trusting, reverent
child-spirit toward God his Father in heaven ; and for
this reason, if for no other, he will always pray, even
when he most earnestly desires a particular thing, w^ith
submission to God his Father's most wise and holy
will. Thus our only perfect exemplar prayed when in
Gethsemane he cried : " O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me : nevertheless, not as 1 will, but
as thou wilt." (Matt. 26 : 39.) Now let the reader re-
mark :
First. It is a w^ell-known, wise, and just principle
governing God's administration of His kingdom of grace,
that He w^ill give such proof of the truth of the Christian
religion as a whole, and of its several fundamental doc-
trines in particular, as shall thoroughly satisfy the ingenu-
ous inquirer, but not " signs from heaven " to shut the
mouths of cavillers. Our Lord says : '' If any man will
do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be
of God " (John 7 : 17) — ^. ^., If any many will honestly
set about making all right between God and himself, and
do this with the Scriptures in his hands, and making
those Scriptures his guide, he shall know that Christianity
— and as a part of that Christianity the doctrine of
effectual prayer — is from God. Thousands in every age
204 NATURE A XI) REVELATION".
and country in wliich Christianity has been preached
have put this matter to the test, and as the result have
learned to believe that Gospel with a faith which death
itself could not disturb. This is God's plan for securing
a certain result ; and, in so far as we can see, it is about
the only plan which will preserve for man his free-agency
in matters which concern his salvation and the life to
come. And, now, what does Professor Tyndall propose
that a Christian, a loving, trustful child of God, shall
do ? That he shall come to God with the prayer that He
will set aside this His plan, pursued for long ages with
abundant success, and give '' a sign from heaven," not
that those vv^ho demand it may be made humble believers
thereby — for he has no reason to think that '' a sign from
heaven" in our day would have any better effect than the
signs given by our Lord did on tlie Scribes and Pharisees
eighteen hundred years ago — but that the mouths of cer-
tain cavillers may be shut. Can a trustful, reverent
child of God put up such a prayer ? Can I believe that
such a prayer will ever be '' inwrought " by the Spirit
of God, whose office it is ^' to assist the infirmities" of
God's children ? The test is impracticable.
Second. What is necessarily involved in the prayer
wliich Professor Tyndall proposes that the Christian man
shall otfer ? The sick in one ward are to be prayed for ;
and on the supposition that prayer will ^' save the sick"
— and this is the Christian's belief — they will recover.
Among the sick in this ward there may be a Christian
who, after a life of trial and sufferinof sent of God to
purify him, is now fitted for heaven — one Vv^ho, like
Lazarus, has long been clothed in rags, and full of sores,
and in his poverty laid at the rich man's gate that he
might be fed with the crumbs which fell from that rich
man's table, has now suffered his appointed time, and
PROVIDEiN'CE AND PIIAYER. 205
the angels are waiting to carry liim away, that he may
rest in Abraham's bosom. The sick in the other ward
are not to be prayed for ; and on the supposition that
prayer is effectual, they must die. Among these there
may be one who has long rejected the grace of Christ,
but in whose case, for some reason — possibly in answer
to the prayers of a pious mother — prayers offered years
ago, while that mother was yet on earth, God purposes
to grant another " season for repentance ;" and if that
season be granted he will improve it, and so secure sal-
vation. There is nothing improbable in these supposi-
tions. And knowing this to be so, what does Professor
Tyndall ask a Christian man to do ? By his prayers to
dismiss the waiting angels, and remand Lazarus to his rags
and his sores again ; by his j)rayers to close the gate of
heaven forever against a poor prodigal whom the Father
was waiting to welcome home, and open an impassable
gulf between a godly mother in heaven and the son of her
prayers. No Christian could do this. Professor Tyn-
dall himself, with his eyes open to all that was involved
in the prayer, would not ask the Christian to do it.
The test is impracticable.
§ 75. The Efficacy of Prayer to he Tested hy Ohserva-
tion.
If in this case experiment is worthless, and the test
which it might furnish impracticable, is there no method
known to science by which the efficacy of prayer can be
determined ? 1 answer, Yes. Careful observation is
open to our use.
In establishing the truths of science, careful observa-
tion is as often resorted to as is experiment, and its re-
sults as thoroughly accepted. The accepted belief among
scientists respecting the density of the train of a comet
206 MATURE AND REVELATI02^.
furnishes an example of sncli a result. Moving as the
comet does, far away in the heavens, we cannot possess
ourselves of any portion of its luminous train that we
may weigh it in balances. But we can, and astronomers
have, followed comets in their movements through the
heavens ; have subjected them to careful observation.
And in doing this, they have learned (1) that bright stars
can be seen through the train of a comet, and (2) some
years ago, when a comet in its course passed between
Jupiter and his satellites, they found that no sensible
effect was produced upon the motion of those satellites,
while the comet was detained some weeks by their attrac-
tion. From this they inferred that the train of a comet
must be exceedingly rare — rarer, even, than the light
clouds sometimes seen floating: in the summer skv. And
this conclusion is considered as satisfactorily established,
and by a method as thoroughly scientific as it could be
by securing a portion of a comet's train and weighing it
in balances.
Let us turn, then, to observation, and see if in this
way we can settle the question respecting the efficacy of
prayer in healing the sick. 1 might here direct attention
to an instance of prayer '' saving the sick " recorded in
the Bible. In 2 Kings 20 we are told that Hezekiah,
Kincr of Judah, on a certain occasion '' was sick unto
death," that " he turned his face unto the wall, and
prayed unto the Lord, saying, I beseech thee, O Lord, re-
member now how I have walked before Thee in truth
and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is
good in Thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it
came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle
court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying.
Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people.
Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I
PROVIDENCE AND PRATER. 207
have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears : behold, I
Mall heal thee : on the third day thou shalt go np unto
the house of the Lord. And I will add unto thy days
fifteen years.'*' Here is an unmistakable instance of
prayer '' saving the sick." But I may be told this was
a miracle ; and, as is conceded on all hands, the age of
miracles is passed. To this I answer, The answer to
Hezekiah's prayer was no more a miracle than the an-
swer to Elijah's prayer at Carmel was ; and the Apostle
James cites the efficacy of Elijah's prayer for the en-
couragement of Christians in every age and country to
pray for the healing of the sick.
To remove all possible objection on any such grounds
as these, I will ask the reader's attention to two cases
which have occurred in our day, for the truth of which I
will myself vouch. And I select these cases, not because
they are singular, but because they are not singular.
Cases of substantially the same kind have, I doubt not,
come under the observa,tion of every Christian who has
lived long in the world.
1. A young man, son of an honored minister of the
Gospel, was hopefully converted when he was about six-
teen years of age, and after a season of careful and
prayerful consideration he gave himself up to serve God
in the work of the ministry. During his college course
he '' lost his first love," and a worldly ambition taking
possession of his soul, he determined to turn to the pro-
fession of the law as his life-work. Shortly after com-
mencing the study of law he was prostrated by an attack
of sickness which all his friends, and he himself, thought
must prove fatal. His sickness was of such a kind as to
leave him in the undisturbed possession of his powers of
thought and reasoning. A godly sorrow for his sin in
breaking covenant with God was awakened within him.
208 NATURE AND REVELATION.
He sought, and, as he believed, obtained pardon for this
his sin. And then his original desire to serve God in
the ministry of His word taking full possession of his
soul, he prayed earnestly that God would restore him to
health, that He might thus serve Him. Contrary to the
expectation of his physician and friends, he began to re-
cover from that very hour ; and he is to-day, and has
been for more than twenty years, preaching the Gospel
with great effect.
2. A Cliristian father was unexpectedly, suddenly,
called to part with a beloved child. She had always
been a thoughtful, though by no means a precocious
child, and for several reasons her father had cherished
the hope that as her mind was opening and her powers
developing they were being sanctified by the Spirit of
God. He knew that in addition to her daily prayers re-
peated at her mother's knee she had been accustomed,
for several months, to go away by herself to pray to God
in secret. Her disease, a form of membranous croup,
made such rapid progress that she was dying, her senses
and power of speech gone, before he thought of saying
anything to her about death and her trust in Jesus. To
all appearance she died. Hgr mother's hand had closed
her eyes, and friends had left the room to make ready
her shrouding. It was the father's first experience of
parting w^itli a child, the first death in the family, and
he knelt by the bedside of his child and prayed with
deepest earnestness that God would give him some as-
surance that in giving up his loved one he was giving her
into the arms of Jesus. While he was yet praying, con-
trary to the expectation of all the child began to breathe
again, and slowly recovering her senses and power of
speech, she put her arms around her father's neck, and
drawing him down close to her, said, as if divining his
PEOVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 209
thoughts, "Father, I am dying," and a sweet smile
lighting up her countenance, she added, " 1 am going
to Jesus ;" and then, slowly unclasping her arms and
lying back upon her pillow, her spirit took its flight.
Such cases of answer to prayer as the two related
above are occurring from time to time within the knowl-
edge of every Christian ; and in them we have proof of
the efficacy of prayer hy ohservation — a proof which
no scientist can reasonably object to, a proof wliich, in
other cases. Professor Tyndall himself would consider
just as satisfactory as any which could be furnished by
experiment.
§ 7G. Prayer Instinctive,
" "Wherever there is religion, true or false, there is
prayer. Even the speculative atheist, when pressed by
danger, has been known to belie his pretended creed by
calling in anguish upon the God whom he denied. This
natural instinct of j[)rayer reposes for its ground on God's
perfections and man's dependence and wants. And so
long as these two facts remain what they are, man must
be a praying creature. Emotion and the expression of
emotion are the unavoidable because natural outgoings
of his powers. He cannot but put forth his activity in
efforts tending to the objects of his desires ; he nmst
cease first to be man ; and prayer is the inevitable, the
natural effort of the dependent creature, in view of
exigencies above his own powers. To tell him Tvho be-
lieves in a God not to pray is to command him to cease
to be a man." (Dabney's " Theology," p. 715.)
"Among all the moral instincts of man there is no
one more natural, more universal, more unconquerable
than prayer. To prayer the child applies himself with
cnsrer teachableness. On prayer the aged man falls back
210 NATURE AND REVELATION.
as on a refuge against decay and solitariness. Prayer
rises spontaneously to young lips which can scarcely
lisp the name of God, and to the dying lips which have
no longer strength to pronounce that name. In all peo-
ples, renowned or obscure, civilized or savage, one meets
with acts and set forms of invocation. Wherever man
lives, under certain circumstances, at certain hours,
under the dominion of certain impressions of the soul,
his eyes raise themselves, his hands seek each other, his
knees bow, to petition or to give thanks, to adore or to
deprecate. With joy or with fear, openly or in the
secrecy of his heart, it is to prayer that man betakes him-
self, in the last resort, to fill up the void of his soul, or
to bear the burdens of his destiny. It is in prayer that
he seeks, when all is failing him, support for his weak-
ness, comfoi-t in his afflictions, encouragement for his
virtue." (M. Guizot, as quoted in the ^' Boyle Lect-
ures for 1873," pp. 6Q, 67.)
'' Grant God and man (God's yet unf alien creature)
standing in His presence, conscious of God's power,
wisdom, and goodness, and of his own dependence upon
Him, and prayer is an intuitive idea. It remains intuitive
when man stands before God^ as a fallen creature, con-
scious how far he has gone from original righteousness,
though it requires reassuring under his thus altered moral
circumstances. ... It remains intuitive, though it re-
quires redirecting, when man has slighted the one true
God, and addressed himself to other objects of worship,
whether instead of Him or beside Him. It remains in-
tuitive when man has asked amiss that he may expend
what he obtains upon his lusts, though it requires formu-
lating, as Christ formulated it in His rehearsal of the
Lord's Prayer, tirst to His disciples and then to a large
auditory. It remains intuitive, though, when the ful-
' PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 211
ness of time was come, Christ was plainly set forth as
the medium through whom it is to be offered, and the
Holy Spirit was made known as co-operating with the
human spirit in its utterance. By such revelations it is
subhmed, indeed, and purified, but it is not thereby ren-
dered less an intuitive effort on the part of man. These
several and successive later workings gave prayer a larger
scope, or reassured or extended it, or recalled it from
abnormal movement, or rescued it from ntter perversion,
or showed man the most appropriate channel through
which it should pass, and the most effectual aid by whiclj
his own effort might be sustained. They did not origi-
nate it. Man found the faculty or tendency toward it
within him, and practised it from the beginning." (Dr.
Hessey's " Boyle Lectures for 18Y3,^' pp. 11, 12.)
I have given the arguments for the instinctive nature
of prayer in the form of lengthened extracts from the
writings of others rather than in my own words for two
reasons : (1) Because they are therein certainly as clearly
expressed as I could hope to express them ; and (2) that
the scientific reader, who may not be familiar with
modern Christian literature, may see that on this point
leading Christian writers of different schools in theology
are agreed.
Paley defines instinct as '^ a propensity prio?- to experi-
ence and independent of instruction.'^^ '' The nest of
the bird, the honeycomb of the bee, the w^eb of the
spider, the threads of the silkworm, the holes or houses
of the beaver, are all executed by instinct, and are not
more perfect now than they were long ages ago. In the
beginning of life we do much by instinct and little by
understanding ; and even when arrived at maturity
there are innumerable occasions on which, because reason
cannot guide us, we must be guided by instinct. The
213 NATURE AND REVELATION.
complex machinery of nerves and muscles necessary to
swallowing our food, walking, etc. , is set agoing by in-
stinct. The motion of our eyelids, and those sudden
motions which we make to avoid sudden danger, are all
instinctive.'' (Imperial Dictionary, art. ^'Instinct.")
The Duke of Argyll has well said : ^^ To account for
instinct by experience " — as Darwin has done — '' is noth-
ing but an Irish bull. It denies the existence of things
which are nevertheless assumed in the very terms of the
denial ; it elevates into a cause that which must in its
nature be a consequence, and a consequence, too, of the
very cause which is denied. Congenital instincts and
hereditary powers and pre-established harmonies are the
origin of all experience, and without them no one step
in experience could ever be gained." ('' Unity of Na-
ture," p. 94.)
Instincts, then, are a part of the original constitution
of man and the lower animals ; they come directly from
God our Creator ; and hence it is, as scientists univer-
sally admit, instinct, within its proper sphere, is a safer,
more unvarying guide than reason. We trust to its guid-
ance in all other directions ; why should we distrust it
when it would lead us to God's mercy-seat in prayer ?
In closing his discussion of instinct, Paley, having re-
ferred to the sacrifice a bird makes in sitting upon her
nest at the very season when everything invites her
abroad, writes : '' I never see a bird in that situation
but I recognize an invisible hand detaining the contented
prisoner from her fields and groves for the purpose, as
the event proves, the most worthy of the sacrifice, tlie
most important, the most beneficial." (Paley's Works,
vol. 4, p. 210.) Tliat same invisible hand — invisible to
the eye of sense only, not to the eye of faith — it is which
would lead man in his helplessness to an Almighty God,
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. 213
and in his guiltiness to God his Saviour. In his words,
" O Thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh
come " (Ps. 65 : 2), the psalmist gives utterance at once
to a profound truth of philosophy and to a prophecy. A
prayer-hearing God is man's great necessity ; and to a
prayer-hearing God, sooner or later, shall the gathering
of the people be.
A NEW BOOK BY JO SI AH ALLEN'S
WIFE.
SWEET CICELY.— A story of the Josiah Allen's Wife's Series.
Of thrilling Interest. Over 100 Illustrations, 12mo, cloth, $2.00.
(Ready Oct. '85.)
•• Josiah AUen's Wife " has always been a shrewd observer of
human nature as it reveals itself in the round of homely, every
day life, and the keen sarcasm and adroit humor with which
she lays bear its fo.bles, its weaknesses and its grotesque out-
croppinga has rarely, if ever, been equaled. The strong feature
of aU Miss HoUey's humor, is its moral tone. The present
work wiU treat the "temperance sentiment" in new phase-
that of a semi-humorous novel.
SOME OPINIONS OF " JOSIAH ALLEN'S WIFE " :
The Woman's Journal. Boston: "The keen sarcasm, cheerful
wit and cogent arguments of her books have convinced thous-
ands of the -folly of their ways.' for wit can pierce where
grave counsel fails."
The Herald, New York: " Her fun is not far-fetched, but easy
and spontaneous. She is now witty, now pathetic, yet ever
strikingly original."
The Home Journal. New York: " She is one of the most origi-
nal humorists of the day."
The New Era. Lancaster, Pa.: "Undoubtedly one of the
truest humorists. Nothing short of a cast-iron man can resist
the exquisite, droll and contagious mirth of her writings."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lo-ia Dey Street, New York.
ARCHIBALD MALMAISON.
A New Novel. By Julian Hawthorne. i2mo) paper, 15 cts.;
cloth, extra paper, 75 cts.
INDEPENDENT, N. Y. " Mr. Julian Hawthorne can choose no
better compliment upon his new romance, ' Archibald Malmai-
SON,' than the assurance that he has at last put forth astory which
reads as if the manuscript, written in his father's indecipherable
handwriting and signed ' Nathaniel Hawthorne,' had lain shut into
a desk for twenty-five years, to be only just now pulled out and
printed. It is a masterful romance ; short, compressed, terribly
dramatic in its important situations, based upon a psychologic
idea as weird and susceptible of startling treatment as possible.
It is a book to be read through in two hours, but to dwell in the
memory forever. The employment of the central theme and the
literary conduct of the plot is nearly beyond criticism."
Ji. H. STODDARD, IN NEW YORK MAIL AND EXPRESS.
" ihe climax is so terrible, as the London Times has pointed out,
and so dramatic in its intensity, that it is impossible to class it
with any situation of modem fiction. . . Mr. Hawthorne is
clearly and easily the first of living romancers."
THE LONDON TIMES. " After perusal of this weird, fantastic
tale (Archibald Malmaison), it must be admitted that upon the
shoulders of Julian Hawthorne has descended in no small degree
the mantle of his more illustrious father. The climax is so terrible,
and so dramatic in its intensity, that it is impossible to class it
with any situation of modern fiction. There is much psychologi-
cal ingenuity shown in some of the more subtle touches that lend
an air of reality to this wild romance."
THE LONDON GLOBE. " ' Archibald Malmaison ' is one of the
most daring attempts to set the wildest fancy masquerading in the
cloak of science, which has ever, pixhaps been made. Mr. Haw-
thorne has managed to combine the almost perfect construction of
a typical French novelist, with a more than typically German
power of conception."
THE ACADEMY. •' Mr. Hawthorne has a more powerful imagin-
ation than any contemporary writer of fiction. He has the very
uncommon gift of taking hold of the reader's attention at once,
and the still more uncommon gift of maintaining his grasp when it
is fixed."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publishers, 10 & 12 Dey St., N. Y.
THE FORTUNES OF RACHEL.
A New Novel. By Edward Everett Hale. i2mo, paper, 25c.;
cloth, $1.
CHRISTIAN UNION, N. Y. " Probably no American has a more
devoted constituency of readers than Mr. Edward Everett Hale,
and to all these his latest story, ' 1 he Fortunes of Rachel,' will
bring genume pleasure. Mr. Hale is emphatically a natural
writer; he loves to interpret common things and to deal with aver-
age persons. He does this with such insight, with such noble
conception of life and of his work, that he discovers that profound
interest which belongs to the humblest as truly as to the most
brilliant forms of life. . . • This story is a thoroughly Ameri-
can novel, full of incident, rich in strong traits of character, and
full of stimulating thought; it is wholesome and elevating."
BOSTON JOURNAL. " The virtue of the book is the healthful,
encouraging, kindly spirit which prevades it, and which will help
one to battle with adverse circumstances, as indeed, all Mr. Hale's
stories have helped."
NEIV YORK JOURNAL OF COMMERCE. "A purely
American story, original all through, and Rachel is one of the
pleasantest and most satisfactory of heroines. She is a girl of the
soil, unspoiled by foreign travels and conventionalites. After
surt'eiting on romances whose scenes are laid abroad, it is delight-
iul to come across a healthy home product like this."
RUTHERFORD.
A New Novel. By Edgar Fawcett. Author cf An Ambitious
Woman" "A Gentleman of Leisure," A Hopeless Case,"
" Tinkling Cymbals," etc. i2mo, paper, 25 cts;
cloth, extra paper, $1.00.
BOSTON GLOBE. " Truly Mr. Fawcett has here wrought with
skill in producing some original and beautiful characters. '1 he
motive and plan are those of a better book than he has ever writ-
ten. . . Rutherford is powerful and will contribute much to
the reputation of its clever author."
SAT. EVENING GAZETTE, Boston. "This story evinces grace
as well as facility of style, is eflfectively told throughout, and m
its plot and characters, is decidedly interesting. The sympathies
of the reader are keenly enlisted for two of the characters who have
been reduced from v/ealthto poverty, and the relation of their ex-
periences in the latter form of life aflFords opportunity for a very
efiFective exhibition of this phase of New York experience. J he
book is one of the most elaborate of Mr. Fawcctt's novels. '
NEW YORK TRIBUNE. " Mr. Fawcett's story. ' Rutherford,'
is more serious in plan than most of his society novels; it has a
motive which is not only tragical, but impressive. . . . It is
well constructed, and contains some excellent sketches of fashion-
able life and touches of satire."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publishers, 10 & 12 Dey St., N. Y.
CHURCH FAIRS ; ARE THEY RIGHT?
GIVING OR ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH? A clear, con-
cise discussion on Churcii Entertainments in contrast to
Giving. By Joseph S. Van Dyke, D.D. 12mo, 32 pp., paper,
25 cts.
The Christian Intelligencer, New York; " This book takes a
strong position against modern methods of raising money in
churches. It is a clear, plain, pungent protest against fairs
and other entertainments for this purpose. The author's argu-
ments are sound and unanswerable."
DANCING; IS IT HURTFUL?
THE DANCE OP MODERN SOCIETY. By William Cleaver
Wilkinson. 12mo, 78 pp., cloth, 60 cts.
Partial Contents.
Its Bearing Upon the
Health.
Its Social Tendency,
Its Influence upon Intellectual
Improvement.
Its Moral and Religious Aspects.
Harper's Magazine : " The most pungent attack on the mod-
ern dance we have ever read."
Theodore L. Cuyler, D.D.: "A most pungent and powerful
little book."
TM^O BOOKS ON LABOR AND CAPITAL.
WORKING PEOPLE AND THEIR EMPLOYERS. By
Washington Gladden. 12mo, paper, 25 cts.; cloth, $1.00.
The Examiner, New York: "This book we cordially com-
mend. It is sound and economic in principal and Christian in
spirit."
PROPERTY IN LAND. A Passage at Arms between the Duke
of Argyll and Henry George. 12mo, 77 pp., paper, 15 cts.
The American- Scottish Journal, New York : "Both sides of the
question are argued with great skill, and in the processes of
reasoning employed throughout the reader will discover much
to assist him in arriving at a conclusion on this question."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lo-ia Dey St., New York.
A NEW BOOK ON FANCY WORK.
SKILFUL SUSY. A Hand-book of Fancy Work for Fairs,
Bazaars, and the Home. By Elinor Gay. 12mo. illustrated,
paper covers, 50 cts.
Articles are suggested and careful directions given for
making them. As far as practicable, the prices of the materials
used are given. The chapter on framing pictures will prove
both novel and suggestive. Particular attention is caUed to
SkUful Susy's coUection of mottoes for decorative work.
The Table of Contents.
Preface Paints, and How to Use Them.
Materials. The Dining Room.
Embroidery Materials. Screens.
'< Stitches. Woodwork.
Drawn Work. Fancy Chains.
Kibbon. Framing Pictures.
Dpsiens Bags and Pillows.
Color ' Something for Everybody.
Suggestions. Mottoes tor Tea and Tray Cloths.
Household Draperies.
PRACTICAL PHYSIOLOGY FOR GIRLS.
WHAT OUR GIRLS OUGHT TO KNOW. By Mary J. Stud-
ley, M.D., State Normal School, Framingham, Mass.
12mo, cloth, $1.00.
Contents.
A Sunny House. The Mate and the Home. |
Best Hoiirs for Sleep. Nerves and Nervousness.
Brain and Nerves. The Use of Sewing Machines.
Carlyle on Clothes. Self-Development.
Causes of Disease. Time to Marry.
Cleanliness. How to Cook.
Clothing the Feet. ^M ^° ^^*- o -.^ t:^ *
Close-fitting Undergar- What Causes Cold Feet.
ments What Causes Varicose Veins.
Hygiene'of the Skin. What Causes Palpitation.
The JForW, New York: '« These essays are written in a clear
and chaste style, and the book is one which every sensible
mother will wish to place in her daughter's hands."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lO-ia Dey St., New York.
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF ALL HISTORY.
LUDLOW S CONCENTRIC CHART OF HISTORY, giving at
a Glance tlie Separate and Contemporaneous History of
each Century, Ancient and Modern. Invented and pat-
ented by James M. Ludlow, D.D. Price $2.00.
Separate and Contemporaneous History of:
United States. Netherlands. The Church.
England. Russia. Modern Painters.
Scotland Turkey. Sculptors.
Ireland. Greece. Architects.
France. India. Literary Characters.
Germany. Norway. The Popes.
Spain. JEgypt. Roman Republic.
Italy. Lydia. Roman Empire.
Sweden. Phoenicia. Ancient Art.
Denmark. The Jews. Ancient Literature.
The device consists of nineteen fan-shaped pieces of stout
card-board, ten inches long and seven inches wide at the top,
fastened upon a common centre. Each of these segments rep-
resents one country or subject (literary, etc.), and is divided by
circles, nineteen in number, having their centre at the base of
the fan. Between these circles is given, together with the
date, the important event9 of each century. By opening two
or more segments the contemporaneous events of the respect-
ive countries can be seen by the century circles. The device
is an important aid in comparing and remembering historical
events.
R.S. Storrs.D.D. : "Admirable in design, skillful in execu-
tion, accurate in detail."
David Cochran, LL.D., Pres, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn:
" A very ingenious and valuable device for bringing historical
events together in their proper relations of time and of cause
and effect."
Jtsse B. Thomas, D.D. : " It holds an ocean of fact in a thim-
bl^jful of space."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lo-ia Dey St., New York.
LIBRARY OF RELIGIOUS POETRY.
A COLLECTION OF THE BEST POEMS OF ALL AGES
AND TONGUES. Edited by PhUlip Schaff; D.D., LL.D.,
an<f Arthul* Gilman, M. A. New Edition. Superbly bound.
Royal 8vo, 1,004 pp., cloth, $6.00.
FuU Page Steel Engravings,
John Milton.
Robert Southey.
J. G. Whittier.
Henry W. Longfellow.
Heni*y Kirk White.
William Shakespeare.
William Cowper.
Edmund Spencer.
Isaac Watts.
William Gullen Bryant.
Dante.
Alfred Tennyson.
John Hall, D.D. : "Itisjast, discriminating and impartial
in its selefctions. Nowhere else can one find in a volume so
much varied wealth of devout sentiment and imagery, with
enough of the personal in brief biographical notes and good
portraits, to aid the memory and imagination."
J. G. Whittier : " Thoroughness, good taste and sound judg-
ment are manifest on every page."
Noah Porter, Pres. Tale College : " In the variety and good
judgment and excellence of its selections, it must prove a
house treasure to any family."
Mark Hopkins, D.D., LL.D. : "The selections are ample and
judicious, and the arrangement is admirable. I know of noth-
ing like it in the English language."
Prof. Moses Coit Tyler, Univ. of Wisconsin : "I have enjoyed
this work. I am instantly Impressed by the catholicity as
well as the delica.cy of its principles of selection."
Thomas R, Pynchon, D.D.. ex-Pres. Trinity College ; "It is ab-
solutely essential to every scholar, and cannot but have a most
powerful influence in cultivating the taste and purifying the
imagination."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, io-i2 Dey St., New York.
ASTRONOMY WITHOUT A TEACHER.
THE STARS AND CONSTELLATIONS. A new method by
which all the more conspicuous stars, constellations and
other objacts of interest in the heavens that are visible to
the naked eye can be easily and certainly identified with-
out Instruments, Globes or Maps. By Royal Hill. Super-
royal fine paper, 4to, with 2 charts and 14 cuts. Price $1.00,
Prof. C. A. Young, rrinceton, N. J. : " An excellent introduc-
tion to the study of the stars, containing in small compass all
that is needed to identify easily aU the leading stars and con-
stellations."
Prof. S. Newcomb, Nautical Almanac Office, Washington, D. C:
"Please accept my thanks for the instructive book, entitled :
' The Stars and Constellations.' "
Prof. S. P. Langley, Director of the Allegheny Observatory, Alle-
gheny, Pa. : '•! have examined ' The Stars and Constellations,'
and think its scheme a very good one. I know of no chart
better calculated to teach the young observer the names and
places of the principal stars. I heartily recommend it."
Alfred G. Compton, Prof. Applied Mathematics College of City of
New York : •' I have examined with pleasure ' The Stars and
Constellations,' and Hike it very much. It should certaiiily
be very useful in making a student acquainted with the prin-
cipal objects in the heavens, which then become centres
around which he can easily learn*to group the details."
J. K. Rees, Director Columbia College Observatory: "The
' Stars and Constellations ' pleases me very much because it is
a successful attempt to interest the young in finding the prin-
cipal stars and constellations. I think it can be very useful
for beginners in the study of the heavens."
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lo-ia Dey St., New York.
VALUABLE BOOKS,
THE ORATIONS OF DEMOSTHENES. Paper, 40 cents.
DRILL BOOK IN VOCAL CULTURE AND GESTURE. By
Rev. E. P. Thwing, Ph. D., paper, 25 cents.
Contents.
Importance of Vocal Culture.
Method of Vocal Culture.
Physical Training.
Production of Tone.
Articultation.
Stress. Emphasis.
Inflection, Pitch, Force.
Melody, Rate of Movement.
Personification-
Gesture.
Extemporaneous Speech.
Facial Expression.
HANDBOOK OF ILLUSTRATIONS. By Rev. E. P. Thwing
Ph. D. In three volumes. Paper, each 25 cents.
TRAPS FOR THE YOUNG. By Anthony Comstock, cloth, $1.
WORKING PEOPLE AND THEIR EMPLOYERS. By Wash-
ington Gladden. Paper, 25 cents; cloth, $1.00.
BIBLICAL LIGHTS AND SIDE LIGHTS; or. Ten Thousand
Biblical Illustrations, with Thirty Thousand Cross References.
By Rev. Charles E. Little. Cloth, $4.00.
GEMS OF ILLUSTRATION. By Rev. Thomas Guthrie. Cloth,
$1.25.
THE SABBATH FOR MAN. By Rev. W. F. Crafts. Cloth, $1.60.
THE LEADERSHIP OF EDUCATED MEN. By George W
Curtis. (Bound with Homiletic Review.) 25 cents.
MANLINESS IN THE SCHOLAR. Oration by R. S. Storrs,
D.D. {Bound with Homiletic Review.) 25 cents.
FUNK & WAGNALLS, lo-ia Dey St., New York.
THE HOYT-WARD CYCLOPEDIA OF PRAC-
TICAL QUOTATIONS.
Prose and Poetry. Nearly 20,000 Quotations and 50,000 lines of
Concordance.
It contains the celebrated quotations and all the useful Proverbs
and Mottoes from the English, Latin, French, German, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese, classified according to subjects. Latin
Law Terms and Phrases, Legal Maxims, etc. (all with translations).
It has a vast concordance of nearly 50,000 lines, by which any
quotation of note may at once be found and traced to its source. It
is to quotations what Young's or Cruden's Concordance is to the
Bible.
Its Table of Contents: Index of Authors, giving date of birth,
nativity, etc.; Topical Index with Cross References, Index of Sub.
jects. Index of Translation, together with its immense Concordance
and many other features desirable in a work of reference, combine
to make this Cyclopaedia what it is,
THE ONLY STANDARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS.
Invaluable to the Statesman, Lawyer Editor, Public Speaker,
Teacher or General Reader.
NOAH PORTER, D.D., LL.D., Pres. Yale College.. "It will
be a help and a pleasure to many."
HON. SAMUEL J. RANDALL, WASHINGTON. "The
best book of quotations which I have seen."
GEO. F. EDMUNDS, U. S. SENATOR.^ " It is the most com-
plete and best work of the kind w:th which I am acquainted."
HON. ABRAM S. HEWITT. " The completeness of its indices
is simply astonishing."
HON. F. T. FRELINGHUYSEN, Secretary of State. "Am
much pl-eased with the Cyclopaedia of Quotations."
HENRY WARD BEECHER. ' "Good all the way through,
especially the proverbs of all nations."
HENRY W. LONGFELLOW.^ " Can hardly fail to be a very
successful and favorite volume."
WENDELL PHILLIPS. "Its variety and fullness and the
completeness of its index gives it rare value to the scholar."
Royal octavo, over 900 pp. Cloth, $5.00; Sheep, $6.50: Fancy
Cloth, Extra Gilt, $7.50; Half Morocco, Gilt, $8.00; Full Morocco,
Extra Finish and Gilt, $10.00.
FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publishers, 10 & la Dey St., N. Y.
'!««
.^-
—
W^M
